United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
M. HOOD SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
without counsel, Petitioner Habib Husein 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].
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, Husein alleges in broad, conclusory terms that he
meets the requirements for pre-release placement on home
detention. [R. 1]. However, Husein 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. Although the Second Chance Act, Pub.L. No.
110-199, 122 Stat. 657 (Apr. 9, 2008), amended 18 U.S.C.
§ 3624(c) to authorize 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, 2010). Indeed, “the decision to place an
inmate in pre-release community confinement and/or home
confinement is discretionary and will be “determined on
an individual basis” according to the factors in 18
U.S.C. § 3621(b). Boals, 2015 WL 8665404 at 2
(citing McIntosh v. Hickey, No. 10-CV-126-JMH, 2010
WL 1959308, at *3 (E.D. Ky., May 17, 2010)).
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, Husein
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, Husein's petition must be
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 Husein's petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [R. 1] is
3. This action is DISMISSED and
STRICKEN from the Court's docket.
4. Judgment shall be entered contemporaneously with this
Memorandum Opinion and Order.