Ti Lu v. BRYAN BIRKHOLZ, Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TI LU,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
BRYAN BIRKHOLZ, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 22-15555
D.C. No. 1:22-cv-00114-LEK-RT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Ti Lu appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Rodriguez v.
Copenhaver, 823 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 2016), and we affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
NOV 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-15555
Lu contends that he meets the criteria for home confinement under the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, but that the Bureau of
Prisons (“BOP”) has not considered his eligibility in accordance with a BOP policy
memorandum. To the extent Lu challenges the BOP’s individualized
determination concerning his placement, the district court properly concluded that
it lacked jurisdiction to consider that claim. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b); Reeb v.
Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1228 (9th Cir. 2011). The district court also properly
dismissed as not cognizable Lu’s claim regarding the BOP’s alleged non-
compliance with its policy memorandum. See Reeb, 636 F.3d at 1227 (“A habeas
claim cannot be sustained based solely upon the BOP’s purported violation of its
own program statement because noncompliance with a BOP program statement is
not a violation of federal law.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --