United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division Lexington
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
M. HOOD SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
without counsel, Petitioner Ramasami Gunabalan has filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 seeking a Court order that he be placed in a
Residential Reentry Center (“RRC”) community
correction home detention program [R. 1],  as well as a
motion styled as a “Motion for Sectional Nonviolent
Relief Act of 2017” requesting that the Court order the
Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to release him to home
detention. [R. 2].
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)).
petition, Gunabalan alleges in broad, conclusory terms that
he meets the requirements for pre-release placement on home
detention. [R. 1]. However, Gunabalan makes no effort to
provide the necessary factual support for his claims, nor
does he make any legal argument as to why such facts, if
proven, would entitle him to relief. At most, he cites the
factors to be considered by the BOP when making RRC placement
decisions and then concludes, with no explanation, that he
meets these requirements. The Court has an obligation to
liberally construe pleadings filed by a person proceeding
without counsel, but it has no authority to create arguments
or claims that he or she has not made. Coleman v.
Shoney's, Inc., 79 Fed.Appx. 155, 157 (6th Cir.
2003) (“Pro se parties must still brief the issues
advanced with some effort at developed
argumentation.”); Superior Kitchen Designs, Inc. v.
Valspar Indus. (U.S.A.), Inc., 263 F.Supp.2d 140, 148
(D. Mass. 2003) (“While the allegations of the
complaint are construed favorably to the plaintiff, the court
will not read causes of action into the complaint which are
although RRC placement and home confinement are helpful
resources for readjustment to society, a federal prisoner
does not have a constitutionally protected right to serve the
final twelve months of his sentence in either a RRC or in
home confinement. The Second Chance Act of 2007, which is
cited by Gunabalan, only requires the BOP to
consider placing an inmate in an RRC or in home
confinement for up to twelve-months; it does not
automatically entitle, or guarantee, any prisoner such
placement for twelve months. See Demis v. Sniezek,
558 F.3d 508, 514 (6th Cir. 2009); Boals v.
Quintana, No. CV 5:15-335-JMH, 2015 WL 8665404, at *2
(E.D. Ky. Dec. 11, 2015); Harris v. Hickey, No.
10-CV-135-JMH, 2010 WL 1959379, at *3 (E.D. Ky. May 17,
before a prisoner may seek habeas relief under Section 2241,
he must first exhaust his administrative remedies within the
Bureau of Prisons. Fazzini v. Northeast Ohio Correctional
Center, 473 F.3d 229, 231 (6th Cir. 2006). Here,
Gunabalan fails to indicate whether he has even presented his
request for RRC or home detention placement to the BOP. Even
if he had made such a request to the BOP, the BOP's
determinations regarding halfway house placement are
expressly insulated from judicial review under the APA. 28
U.S.C. § 3625 (“The provisions of sections 554 and
555 and 701 through 706 of title 5, United States Code, do
not apply to the making of any determination, decision, or
order under this subchapter.”). Cf. Woodard v.
Quintana, No. 5:15-307-KKC, 2015 WL 7185478, at *5-6
(E.D. Ky. Nov. 13, 2015).
each of the foregoing reasons, Gunabalan's petition must
it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Francisco Quintana, Warden of the Federal Medical Center
in Lexington, Kentucky, is SUBSTITUTED as
the respondent in this proceeding.
2. Petitioner Gunabalan's petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [R. 1] is
3. Gunabalan's Motion for Sectional Nonviolent Relief Act
of 2017” [R. 2] is DENIED.
4. This action is DISMISSED and
STRICKEN from the Court's docket.
5. Judgment shall be entered contemporaneously with this