Charles Richard Burgess v. David Silva

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: October 22, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-08941
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. 2:25-cv-08941-DMG (SK) Date: October 22, 2025 Title Charles Richard Burgess v. David Silva

Present: The Honorable: Steve Kim, United States Magistrate Judge

Connie Chung n/a Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s): Defendant(s)/Respondent(s): None present None present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Petitioner filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP’s) decision denying him placement in home confinement for the remainder of his federal sentence. (ECF 1 at 3-4). But habeas relief is available under §2241 only for claims that would “necessarily lead to his immediate or earlier release from confinement.” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 935 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). And the decision whether to place a federal prisoner on home confinement to serve out the remainder of his sentence lies within the exclusive authority of the BOP. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(6)(A); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) (“The [BOP] shall designate the place of the prisoner’s imprisonment.”); United States v. Ceballos, 671 F.3d 852, 855 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The [BOP] has the statutory authority to choose the locations where prisoners serve their sentence.”). The Court thus has no habeas jurisdiction under §2241 to order that petitioner be placed in home confinement contrary to the BOP’s discretionary placement decision. See Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1227 (9th Cir. 2011). For these reasons, petitioner is ordered to show cause why his § 2241 petition should not be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See L.R. 72-3.2 (summary dismissal of habeas petition authorized when “it plainly appears from the face of the petition” that “petitioner is not entitled to relief”). Petitioner may discharge this order by signing and returning the attached Form CV-09y within 14 days of receiving this order. Failure to return that form as ordered or to otherwise timely respond in writing CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. 2:25-cv-08941-DMG (SK) Date: October 22, 2025 Title Charles Richard Burgess v. David Silva will lead to the immediate closing of this case with no further notice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 41-1. IT IS SO ORDERED.