U.S. v. Stone, 2:09-CR-20074-001. (2019)
Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20190403b51
Visitors: 14
Filed: Apr. 02, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 02, 2019
Summary: ORDER P.K. HOLMES, III , District Judge . Before the Court is Defendant Jacob Logan Stone's motion (Doc. 42) to recommend referral to a residential reentry center ("RRC") for 12 months. The Government filed a response (Doc. 43) in opposition. Defendant's motion is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. Miller v. Whitehead, 527 F.3d 752 , 754 (8th Cir. 2008). Defendant asks the Court to "strongly recommend" to the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") that it consider the fourth factor under 18 U.S.C
Summary: ORDER P.K. HOLMES, III , District Judge . Before the Court is Defendant Jacob Logan Stone's motion (Doc. 42) to recommend referral to a residential reentry center ("RRC") for 12 months. The Government filed a response (Doc. 43) in opposition. Defendant's motion is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. Miller v. Whitehead, 527 F.3d 752 , 754 (8th Cir. 2008). Defendant asks the Court to "strongly recommend" to the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") that it consider the fourth factor under 18 U.S.C...
More
ORDER
P.K. HOLMES, III, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant Jacob Logan Stone's motion (Doc. 42) to recommend referral to a residential reentry center ("RRC") for 12 months. The Government filed a response (Doc. 43) in opposition. Defendant's motion is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Miller v. Whitehead, 527 F.3d 752, 754 (8th Cir. 2008). Defendant asks the Court to "strongly recommend" to the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") that it consider the fourth factor under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) in determining whether he should be referred to an RRC. (Doc. 42, p. 5). Defendant must file this § 2241 motion in a district where a regional BOP office is located. See United States v. Chappel, 208 F.3d 1069, 1069-70 (8th Cir. 2000). Because there is no regional office in the Western District of Arkansas, this Court lacks jurisdiction. Furthermore, because Defendant fails to demonstrate he has exhausted the available administrative remedies, it would be futile to transfer this case to another venue at this time. See Mathena v. United States, 577 F.3d 943, 946 (8th Cir. 2009). The motion will therefore be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's motion (Doc. 42) to recommend referral to an RRC is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
