Amr Mohsen v. Conrad Graber

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 29 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMR MOHSEN, No. 13-15326
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:11-cv-00566-JGZ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CONRAD M. GRABER,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Amr Mohsen appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition challenging his
placement and classification by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of a section 2241
*
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).
petition de novo, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), and
we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand with instructions.
Mohsen contends that the BOP unlawfully denied his request for
reclassification of his offense severity category from “high” to “moderate” under
18 U.S.C. § 4081. In light of the nature of Mohsen’s offense and other relevant
statutory factors, we reject this contention.
We decline to reach Mohsen’s contention that the BOP’s denial of his
request for immediate placement in a Residential Reentry Center (“RRC”) violated
the First Amendment. See Koerner v. Grigas, 328 F.3d 1039, 1048 (9th Cir. 2003)
(this court does not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not argued in
appellant's opening brief).
Mohsen also contends that the BOP unlawfully denied his request for RRC
placement because it failed to give his request individualized consideration under
the five factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). Under Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d
1224, 1227-29 (9th Cir. 2011), the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate
the merits of this claim. Accordingly, we vacate that portion of the district court’s
order and remand with instructions to dismiss this claim for lack of jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED with
instructions.
2 13-15326