Jerez-Toco v. Johns, 5:16-cv-00077

Jerez-Toco, currently imprisoned at D. Ray James Correctional Facility, seeks a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the BOP's denial of a transfer within 500 miles of his residence in Los Angeles.
He pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine (21 U.S.C. § 846) in the Western District of Pennsylvania on April 2, 2014 and was sentenced to 70 months, later reduced to 60 months.
His projected release date is January 28, 2018, via good conduct time release.
The BOP designated him with a public safety factor of deportable alien due to his non-citizen status, influencing placement decisions and transfer considerations.
The BOP determined D. Ray James meets his programming and security needs and denied a nearer-release transfer, asserting discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) and Program Statement 5100.08; Jerez-Toco challenged these determinations as improper or unlawful.
The magistrate judge recommended denying the petition, closing the case, and denying leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Jerez-Toco is entitled to a nearer-release transfer.	Jerez-Toco contends BOP should transfer him closer to home.	BOP has broad discretion under § 3621(b) and PSF policy; no right to a nearer transfer exists.	No entitlement; BOP discretion defeats the transfer request.
Whether a deportable-alien PSF requires a detainer as a condition for transfer consideration.	Argues detainer status should drive transfer decisions.	PSF designation governs discretion regardless of a lodged detainer.	PSF applicability does not require a detainer; transfer denial stands on discretion.
Whether Jerez-Toco has a constitutional right to placement at a specific facility or near family.	Seeks placement nearer family; asserts potential liberty interest in assignment.	No constitutional right to placement at any particular prison.	No due process or liberty interest in a specific prison placement.
Whether the petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or merit.	Claims jurisdiction and merits through § 2241 to challenge transfer.	BOP discretion and lack of a viable constitutional claim foreclose relief.	Petition denied on jurisdictional/merits grounds; relief not warranted.
Whether the court should grant appellate in forma pauperis status.	Seeks review of transfer denial; asks for IFP on appeal.	Appeal would be frivolous; no good-faith basis exists for appeal.	Denied; no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.

Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 (1983) (no right to a particular facility; BOP discretion governs placement)
Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976) (no liberty interest in prison placement)
Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004) (proper respondent in a 2241 action; detainer considerations noted)
United States v. Saldana, 273 F. App’x 845 (11th Cir. 2008) (attack on place of confinement under 28 U.S.C. § 2241)
Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528 (11th Cir. 2002) (good faith standard for in forma pauperis appeals)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (frivolousness standard for IFP appeals)