FIORITO v. ENTZEL (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-04-30No. No. 19-55491

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Fiorito's habeas corpus petition, holding that his claims regarding his reclassification and the Bureau's alleged failure to follow its own regulations are not cognizable in habeas proceedings.

Michael Fiorito, a federal inmate, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his classification as a medium-security prisoner after the Bureau of Prisons designated him a violent offender and increased his custody score. Fiorito argued the Bureau violated his due process rights and failed to follow its own regulations. The district court dismissed the petition, and Fiorito appealed on his own behalf.

The appellate court found that Fiorito's claims did not qualify for habeas relief. The court explained that a transfer between security levels does not restrict liberty sufficiently to allow habeas jurisdiction. Additionally, the court held that violations of the Bureau's internal program statements alone cannot support a habeas petition unless they also constitute violations of federal law. Fiorito had not presented evidence of any underlying federal law violation separate from the Bureau's alleged procedural failures.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a transfer to a higher security prison classification invokes habeas corpus jurisdiction
Whether violations of Bureau of Prisons program statements alone support habeas relief
Whether the Bureau of Prisons violated due process in designating an inmate a violent offender

Procedural posture

Fiorito appealed pro se from a district court judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition challenging his prison security reclassification.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Michael Fiorito appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011), we affirm.

Fiorito contends that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) violated his right to due process by designating him a violent offender and increasing his custody score, which resulted in his classification as a medium-security inmate. This contention is not cognizable in a habeas petition. This court has already determined that Fioritos transfer from a low-security to a medium-security prison did not subject him to greater restrictions of his liberty sufficient to invoke habeas jurisdiction. See Fiorito v. Entzel, 829 F. Appx 192 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989)). None of Fioritos allegations in these proceedings supports a different conclusion.

Fioritos allegation that the BOP violated the “Accardi doctrine” fares no better. Insofar as Fiorito argues that the BOP failed to follow its program statements, “[a] habeas claim cannot be sustained based solely upon the BOPs purported violation of its own program statement because noncompliance with a BOP program statement is not a violation of federal law.” Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1227 (9th Cir. 2011). To the extent Fiorito alleges violations of federal law independent of the BOPs alleged non-compliance with its program statements, his allegations are not supported by the record.

We do not reach Fioritos assertion that the First Step Act imposes due process requirements on the BOP because he did not develop this argument. See United States v. Williamson, 439 F.3d 1125, 1138 (9th Cir. 2006).

Finally, the district court did not err by denying Fioritos motions to strike the governments answer and for summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.