# Abdullah Brown v. Richard Ives

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · October 22, 2013 · 543 F. App'x 636

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1086637

## Case

- **Full name:** Abdullah Robert BROWN, A.K.A. Robert Brown, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Richard B. IVES, Warden; Federal Bureau of Prisons, Respondents-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 22, 2013
- **Citations:** 543 F. App'x 636
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Fisher, Gould, Bybee
- **Nature of suit:** Habeas
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1086637

## Opinion text

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 22 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ABDULLAH ROBERT BROWN, No. 11-56915
a.k.a. Robert Brown,
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-04066-JST
Petitioner - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM *

RICHARD B. IVES, Warden; FEDERAL
BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Josephine Staton Tucker, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 15, 2013 **

Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Abdullah Robert Brown appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition for lack of

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Brown contends that the Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) refusal to transfer him

to a residential reentry center (“RRC”) violates 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), which

governs the BOP’s authority to place prisoners in an RRC when a prisoner has

more than a year left to serve on his sentence. Insofar as Brown is challenging the

BOP’s individualized determination concerning his placement, the district court

properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the petition. See Reeb v.

Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1228 (9th Cir. 2011).

To the extent that Brown argues that the BOP violated federal law by

“automatically” denying his request for RRC placement based on the time he had

left to serve on his sentence, he has not shown that the BOP acted unlawfully.

Contrary to his claim, the BOP does not have a policy of categorically excluding

from RRC placement prisoners who, like Brown, have more than six months left to

serve on their sentences. See Sacora v. Thomas, 628 F.3d 1059, 1064, 1068 (9th

Cir. 2010). We decline to consider Brown’s ex post facto challenge to the BOP’s

policy regarding RRC placement because it was not raised in his petition. See

Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir. 1994).

Brown’s motion for leave to amend filed on August 30, 2013, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 11-56915

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1086637. Public record. Not legal advice.