Gustavo Constanza v. FCI Victorville II

C.D. California

Gustavo Constanza v. FCI Victorville II

DecidedAugust 18, 2025

Docket5:25-cv-00726

StatusUnknown

This text of Gustavo Constanza v. FCI Victorville II (Gustavo Constanza v. FCI Victorville II) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gustavo Constanza v. FCI Victorville II, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GUSTAVO CONSTANZA, Case No. 5:25-cv-00726-FLA (E)

12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, 13 v. CONCLUSIONS, AND 14 FC VICTORVILLE II, RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 Respondent. 16

17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the court has reviewed the Petition (Dkt. 1), all the 19 records herein, and the attached Report and Recommendation of United States 20 Magistrate Judge. The court has also engaged in a de novo review of those portions of 21 the Report and Recommendation to which any objections have been made. 22 The Report recommends the denial of the Petition and the dismissal of this action 23 with prejudice. Dkt. 15.1 Petitioner’s objections to the Report, Dkt. 16, do not merit any 24 change to the Report’s findings or recommendations. 25 Petitioner objects that he is entitled to prerelease placement under the Second 26 Chance Act. Dkt. 16 at 2. As the Report found, federal courts lack jurisdiction to review 27 1 || inmate placement decisions by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). Dkt. 15 at 3 2 || (citing Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1228 (9th Cir. 2011), and other cases). 3 Petitioner objects that his claim is supported by legal authority. Dkt. 16 at 3-4. 4 || The authorities Petitioner cites, however, are either irrelevant or do not support the 5 || prerelease placement claim he raises here. See Kuzmenko v. Phillips, Case No. 2:25-cv- 6 || 00663-DJC-AC, 2025 WL 779743, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2025) (entitlement to time 7 || credits under the First Step Act); Muniz v. Sabol, 517 F.3d 29, 36 (1st Cir. 2008) (federal 8 || statute governing inmate transfers “leaves it to the BOP’s discretion whether to 9 | undertake a transfer at all”); Woodall v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 241 10 || 3d Cir. 2005) (conflict between federal regulations and statute regarding inmate 11 || placement). 12 The court, therefore, accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 13 || Recommendation. 14 IT IS ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered denying and dismissing the 15 || Petition with prejudice. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order, the 17 || Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and the Judgment herein on Petitioner 18 || and on counsel for Respondent. 19 20 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 21 22 || DATED: August 18, 2025 73 FERNANDO Lx AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 2?

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GUSTAVO CONSTANZA, Case No. 5:25-cv-00726-FLA (E)

12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, 13 v. CONCLUSIONS, AND 14 FC VICTORVILLE II, RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 Respondent. 16

17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the court has reviewed the Petition (Dkt. 1), all the 19 records herein, and the attached Report and Recommendation of United States 20 Magistrate Judge. The court has also engaged in a de novo review of those portions of 21 the Report and Recommendation to which any objections have been made. 22 The Report recommends the denial of the Petition and the dismissal of this action 23 with prejudice. Dkt. 15.1 Petitioner’s objections to the Report, Dkt. 16, do not merit any 24 change to the Report’s findings or recommendations. 25 Petitioner objects that he is entitled to prerelease placement under the Second 26 Chance Act. Dkt. 16 at 2. As the Report found, federal courts lack jurisdiction to review 27 1 || inmate placement decisions by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). Dkt. 15 at 3 2 || (citing Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1228 (9th Cir. 2011), and other cases). 3 Petitioner objects that his claim is supported by legal authority. Dkt. 16 at 3-4. 4 || The authorities Petitioner cites, however, are either irrelevant or do not support the 5 || prerelease placement claim he raises here. See Kuzmenko v. Phillips, Case No. 2:25-cv- 6 || 00663-DJC-AC, 2025 WL 779743, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2025) (entitlement to time 7 || credits under the First Step Act); Muniz v. Sabol, 517 F.3d 29, 36 (1st Cir. 2008) (federal 8 || statute governing inmate transfers “leaves it to the BOP’s discretion whether to 9 | undertake a transfer at all”); Woodall v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 241 10 || 3d Cir. 2005) (conflict between federal regulations and statute regarding inmate 11 || placement). 12 The court, therefore, accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 13 || Recommendation. 14 IT IS ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered denying and dismissing the 15 || Petition with prejudice. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order, the 17 || Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and the Judgment herein on Petitioner 18 || and on counsel for Respondent. 19 20 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 21 22 || DATED: August 18, 2025 73 FERNANDO Lx AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 2?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gustavo Constanza v. FCI Victorville II, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gustavo-constanza-v-fci-victorville-ii-cacd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack