United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS
F. Cox U.S. District Judge.
inmate Sam Fakhouri, (“Petitioner”), filed a pro
se habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The
petition asserts that the Bureau of Prison
(“BOP”) failed to timely transfer him to a
community corrections center because of a lack of funding for
the program. The petition will be summarily denied because
Petitioner has no constitutional right to placement in a
community corrections center prior to completion of his
was convicted in the Northern District of Illinois of bank
fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. On May 2, 2014,
he was sentenced to 60 months' imprisonment and 5
years' supervised release.
claims that the BOP notified him that he would be released to
a community correctional facility in Chicago on October 24,
2017. Petitioner asserts that his placement was delayed until
February 22, 2018, due to a lack of funding. Petitioner
requests an order declaring the BOP's actions
unconstitutional and ordering the BOP to reinstate
Petitioner's 90-day placement at a community correctional
Court conducts an initial review of habeas corpus petitions.
28 U.S.C. § 2243; Alexander v. Northern Bureau of
Prisons, 419 Fed.Appx. 544, 545 (6th Cir. 2011). A
petition will be denied “if it plainly appears from the
petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief.” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
§ 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts
(applicable to § 2241 petitions pursuant to Rule 1(b)).
At this stage of the proceedings, the Court accepts
Petitioner's factual allegations as true and construes
all legal claims in his favor. Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007).
claims that the BOP violated his constitutionally protected
liberty interest to placement in a community correctional
facility by delaying his placement due to a lack of funding.
Under section 2241, the Court may grant habeas corpus relief
only if the applicant “is in custody in violation of
the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). The Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in
relevant part that “no person shall . . . be deprived
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law.” U.S. Const. amend V. The Supreme Court, however,
has rejected the notion that “any change in the
conditions of confinement having a substantial adverse impact
on the prisoner involved is sufficient to invoke the
protections of the Due Process Clause.” Meachum v.
Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224 (1976). A prisoner
“possesses no inherent constitutional right to
placement in any particular prison, ” Williams v.
Bass, 63 F.3d 483, 485 (6th Cir. 1995), and he has
“no justifiable expectation that he will be
incarcerated in any particular State.” Olim v.
Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983).
Second Chance Act of 2007, relied upon by Petitioner to
support his claim, increased the maximum term of halfway
house placement for a federal prisoner from six to twelve
months. It requires that the BOP evaluate each prisoner
individually to ensure that such placement is “of
sufficient duration to provide the greatest likelihood of
successful reintegration into the community. 18 U.S.C. §
3624(c)(6)(C). BOP regulations utilize the factors set forth
in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) when making placement decisions.
28 C.F.R. § 570.22.
is not entitled to habeas relief on his claim that he has a
protected liberty interest in placement in a community
correctional center. Section 3624(c) “does not require
placement in a [community corrections center]. It only
obligates the [Bureau of Prisons] to facilitate the
prisoner's transition from the prison system.”
Elwood v. Jeter, 386 F.3d 842, 847 (8th Cir. 2004);
See also Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d
235, 251 (3rd Cir. 2005) (“That the BOP may assign a
prisoner to a CCC does not mean that it must.”);
Levine v. Apker, 455 F.3d 71, 75 (2nd Cir. 2006)
(“the combined import of the statutes [§ 3621(b)
and § 3624(c)] was to give the BOP discretion to
transfer an inmate to a CCC for a period longer than six
months or ten percent of his sentence, but to oblige the BOP,
where practicable, to transfer inmates to a CCC for a
reasonable part of the last ten percent, not to exceed six
months, of his sentence”)(emphasis added). In addition,
“the obligation is qualified by the phrase ‘to
the extent practicable.'” Elwood, 386 F.3d
at 847. “Nothing in the language of section 3624(c)
mandates that all prisoners pass through a community
treatment center en route to free society.” United
States v. Laughlin, 933 F.2d 786, 789 (9th Cir. 1991).
Because Petitioner does not have a constitutionally protected
liberty interest to be placed in a community correctional
center, he has failed to demonstrate entitlement to habeas
relief under section 2241. The alleged lack of funding for
the program, and the resultant delay in his placement, did
not implicate Petitioner's constitutional rights. The
petition will therefore be denied.
the Court SUMMARILY DENIES the petition for
writ of habeas corpus. Because a certificate of appealability
is not needed to appeal the dismissal of a habeas petition
filed under § 2241, See Hervey v. United
States, 105 F.Supp.2d 731, 736 (E.D. Mich. 2000),
Petitioner need not apply for one with this Court or the
Sixth Circuit before seeking to appeal this decision.