Ryan Bonneau v. J. E. Thomas

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RYAN BONNEAU,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
J. E. THOMAS,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 12-35303
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00801-BR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 16, 2013**
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Ryan Bonneau appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment granting in part and denying in part his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition, see Mora-Meraz v. Thomas,
FILED
APR 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-35303 2
601 F.3d 933, 939 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
Bonneau’s section 2241 petition challenged two prison disciplinary
proceedings and alleged that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) violated his due
process rights by removing him from the Residential Drug Abuse Treatment
Program (“RDAP”). The district court concluded that Bonneau’s due process
rights were violated in one of the disciplinary proceedings and ordered the incident
report expunged and the sanctions resulting from that hearing reversed. The
district court further concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review Bonneau’s
claim requesting reinstatement into RDAP.
On appeal, Bonneau contends that the district court could have considered
his RDAP claim insofar as he was requesting reinstatement into RDAP or
reevaluation for RDAP placement as part of the remedy for the constitutional
violation that occurred in his disciplinary proceeding. The district court correctly
determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BOP’s individualized
determination made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621. See 18 U.S.C. § 3625; Reeb v.
Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 2011). Furthermore, even assuming the
district court could have ordered the remedy Bonneau seeks, it did not abuse its
broad discretion in fashioning habeas relief in this case. See Hilton v. Braunskill,
481 U.S. 770, 775 (1987).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --