Bach v. Billingsley

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Justin Andrew Bach,
Petitioner,
v.
James Billingsley,
Respondent.
No. CV-25-00067-TUC-AMM (BGM)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On February 13, 2025, Petitioner Justin Andrew Bach, who is currently incarcerated
with the Federal Bureau of Prisons, (Bureau), and was housed at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Safford, Arizona, (FCI-Safford), filed a Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for
a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody. (Doc. 1.) Bach raises one ground
for relief in his petition arguing that the head of the United States Probation Office for the
District of Arizona impermissibly denied his relocation request from Ohio to Arizona and
that it is illegal to refuse to send him to home confinement when eligible. (Id. at 4.) Bach
requests that the Court order the Probation Office to recognize his earned time credits under
the First Step Act (FSA) and to immediately approve his relocation request. (Id. at 9.)
Under Local Rules of Civil Procedure 72.1 and 72.2, this matter was referred to Magistrate
Judge Bruce G. Macdonald for a report and recommendation. (Doc. 6 at 3.) The Magistrate
Judge recommends that the District Judge, after her independent review, deny the petition
and dismiss this case.
Case 4:25-cv-00067-AMM Document 16 Filed 03/13/26 Page 1 of 7

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 21, 2007, after pleading guilty to a federal felony involving conspiracy
to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of illegal narcotics, Justin Bach was
sentenced to 360 months imprisonment followed by a five-year term of supervised release.1
Bach has been in Bureau custody since 2007, (see Doc. 13-1 at 21), and was housed
at FCI-Safford from March 2016, (id. ¶ 14 at 6), until August 14, 2025, when he was
transferred to a Residential Reentry Center (RRC) in Phoenix, Arizona, (id. ¶ 30 at 8).2
On February 13, 2025, Bach filed the petition at hand raising one claim for relief.
(Doc. 1 at 4.) In the petition, he states:
My hard out date is 4-20-2029. With FSA credits, my projected home
confinement date is 8-10-2026. And with 12 months halfway house[,] that
puts me at 8-10-2025. My case managers attempted to do an address
relocation from Ohio, where I was sentenced, to Arizona, Phoenix, where my
son and his mother live. Very routine request. Ohio Ok’d the relocation[,]
but Arizona Federal Probation denied it saying it’s their policy not to do
address relocations until within 18 months of hard date. Refusing to
recognize my 985 days FSA time credits and my 12 months Second Chance
Act [h]alfway house placement and best case scenario. C.M. Holloway told
me this is the first time this has ever happened[,] and Arizona is the only state
attempting this. She said Philip Munoz is the new head of Probation. She also
told me Central Office didn’t know how to respond to the refusal. Philip
Munoz is creating his own policy and interfering in the spirit of the law[,]
which is the First Step Act. [B]y not approving my Phoenix address, I would
have to stay at the Phoenix halfway house from 8-10-2025 until my hard out
date of 4-20-2029. 3 years 10 months with [n]o home confinement. I am
eligible and it’s illegal to not send me to home confinement when eligible.
(Id. )
On July 18, 2025, the Court screened Bach’s petition and warned him that failing to
comply with the District’s change of address procedures could result in case dismissal.
1 Judgment in a Criminal Case, United States v. Bach, No. 1:04-cr-00024(1) (S.D. Ohio
Feb. 21, 2007), ECF No. 517.
2 RRCs are commonly known as “halfway houses.” Rodriguez v. Smith, 541 F.3d 1180,
1181 n.1 (9th Cir. 2008).
Case 4:25-cv-00067-AMM Document 16 Filed 03/13/26 Page 2 of 7

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(Doc. 6 at 2.) On September 10, 2025, the Government filed its return and answer. (Doc.
13.) On September 22, 2025, mail sent to Bach at FCI-Safford was returned to the Clerk’s
Office as undeliverable. (Doc. 15.) On the envelope was a notation that Bach and been
transferred and/or discharged. (Id.) This Report and Recommendation follows.
LEGAL STANDARD
A district court may grant habeas relief when a petitioner is in custody in “violation
of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241. “Generally,
motions to contest the legality of a sentence must be filed under § 2255 in the sentencing
court, while petitions that challenge the manner, location, or conditions of a sentence’s
execution must be brought pursuant to § 2241 in the custodial court.” Hernandez v.
Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000). A prisoner may challenge computation of
his sentence or seek judicial review of any jail-time determination via a § 2241 petition.
Rogers v. United States, 180 F.3d 349, 358 (1st Cir. 1999); see also Nettles v. Grounds,
830 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (cleaned up) (“Challenges to the validity of
any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus”).
In federal habeas proceedings, the petitioner bears the burden of proving that he is being
held contrary to law by a preponderance of the evidence. Skaftouros v. United States, 667
F.3d 144, 158 (2d Cir. 2011); Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 969 n.16 (9th Cir. 2004).
DISCUSSION
Bach brings the petition at hand requesting that the Court order the United States
Probation Office for the District of Arizona to recognize his FSA earned time credits and
immediately approve his address relocation request. (Doc. 1 at 9.) He contends that the
Probation Office is interfering with the spirit of the law by failing to approve his request,
which will require him to stay at a Phoenix halfway house from August 10, 2025, until
April 20, 2029, instead of serving that time in home confinement. (Doc. 1 at 4.) Bach
asserts it is illegal to refuse to send him to home confinement when he is eligible. (Id.)
Respondent answers that Bach’s request should be directed at the Bureau because it
has the statutory authority to make placement and transfer decisions as Bach’s custodian.
Case 4:25-cv-00067-AMM Document 16 Filed 03/13/26 Page 3 of 7

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(Doc. 13 at 1, 6.) Respondent adds that notwithstanding the fact that the Probation Office
was incorrectly named a party in Bach’s petition, the petition should be denied because the
Court lacks jurisdiction to review individualized prerelease custody placement decisions.
(Doc. 13 at 13-16.) Respondent also argues that Bach failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies prior to filing suit, the approval of his relocation request renders his petition
moot, and the petition fails for other jurisdictional reasons. (See id. at 8-12, 17-20.)
Setting the prudential exhaustion issue aside,3 the Court agrees with Respondent
that it lacks jurisdiction over the petition. Even if the Court were to exercise jurisdiction
over the petition, it would fail on the merits because the Court lacks the authority to provide
the relief Bach seeks. Bach’s petition should therefore be denied and this case dismissed.
I. Petition Challenges Prerelease Custody Placement
It is apparent from the face of Bach’s petition that he does not challenge the
calculation of his earned time credits and Second Chance Act (SCA) credits, as he correctly
asserts that he has 985 days of potential earned time credits and 365 days of SCA credits
to advance his prerelease custody eligibility date. (See Docs. 1 at 4; 13-1, ¶ 25 at 7-8.) It
is also apparent from the face of Bach’s petition that he does not challenge the application
of earned time credits and SCA credits to his sentence. (See Doc. 1 at 4.) Bach’s estimated
projected release date of April 20, 2029 (which he calls his “hard out date”), is one day
away from his verified projected release date of April 21, 2029. (See Docs. 1 at 4; 13-1, ¶
22 at 7.) More importantly, if Bach were to subtract 1,350 days (985 days of earned time
credits + 365 days of SCA credits) from his projected release date, he would arrive at his
“[c]onditional [t]ransition to [c]ommunity [d]ate” of August 10, 2025, which he accurately
3 Bach concedes he failed to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing suit
but contends that doing so would be “futile” because “[t]he issue relates to U.S. Probation.”
(Doc. 1 at 4.) The Court finds it more expeditious to address the merits of Bach’s petition
considering the fact(s) that he already attempted to resolve his claim through case managers
and probation personnel, (see id. at 4, 10-11), and he was transferred to prelease custody
during the pendency of his petition. The Court also notes there is no relief Bach could have
obtained through the Bureau’s internal exhaustion process. See Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d
926, 935 (9th Cir. 2005) (reiterating that exhaustion is not required “when no pertinent
relief can be obtained through the internal process.”).
Case 4:25-cv-00067-AMM Document 16 Filed 03/13/26 Page 4 of 7

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
asserts in his petition. (See Docs. 1 at 4; 13-1, ¶ 26 at 8.) The crux of Bach’s petition is a
challenge to his placement in an RRC as opposed to home confinement for the prerelease
custody portion of his sentence. (See Doc. 1 at 4 (“I am eligible and it’s illegal to not send
me to home confinement when eligible.”) However, the Court lacks jurisdiction over
Bach’s petition and fails to have the authority to order the Bureau to place him in home
confinement rather than a halfway house for prerelease custody.
A. Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Discretionary Placement Decisions
“[T]he essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality
of that custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). However, where success
on a petitioner’s claim “would not necessarily lead to his immediate or earlier release from
confinement,” then it “does not fall within the core of habeas corpus.” Nettles v. Grounds,
830 F.3d 922, 935 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While
federal courts do not have jurisdiction to review discretionary placement determinations
made by the Bureau of Prisons, see Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1228 (9th Cir. 2011),
the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly emphasized that “judicial review remains available for
allegations that B[ureau] action is contrary to established federal law, violates the United
States Constitution, or exceeds its statutory authority.” Close v. Thomas, 653 F.3d 970,
973-74 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Reeb, 636 F.3d at 1228).
Here, contrary to Bach’s assertions, the Bureau is responsible for determining where
he is placed for the prerelease custody portion of his sentence. See Sacora v. Thomas, 628
F.3d 1059, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Two statutory provisions govern the [Bureau’s]
authority to place inmates in its custody in RRCs: 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621(b) and 3624(c).”).
18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) governs the Bureau’s authority to designate a prisoner’s place of
confinement while in Bureau custody, and 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) provides the Bureau with
discretion to place a prisoner in an RRC or in home confinement for prerelease custody.
Id. at 1062. Under section 3621, the Bureau is also responsible for handling a prisoner’s
transfer request to an RRC “where a prisoner who has more than a year left to serve of his
or her prison sentence requests a transfer to such a facility.” Id. Bach’s home confinement
Case 4:25-cv-00067-AMM Document 16 Filed 03/13/26 Page 5 of 7

- 6 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
request therefore falls under the Bureau’s discretionary placement authority and judicial
review is unavailable.
The Ninth Circuit, and district courts within the circuit, support this conclusion. See
Reeb, 636 F.3d at 1227 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (“[T]he judicial
review provisions of the APA do not apply to any determination, decision, or order made
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621–3624.”); Williams v. Araiz-Ramirez, No. 2:25-CV-00616,
2025 WL 1184653, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2025) (citing Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224,
1227 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A]bsent a colorable constitutional claim, the [c]ourt lacks
jurisdiction to review the B[ureau’s] discretionary determination regarding RRC
placement”); Rand v. Carvajal, No. 2:21-cv-00720, 2021 WL 3411198, at *2 (C.D. Cal.
May 21, 2021) (“Congress gave the Attorney General, and by designation the B[ureau],
exclusive authority to determine custody placements including placement in home
confinement.”); United States v. Buckley, No. 2:13-CR-00125, 2019 WL 3035554, at *3
(E.D. Cal. July 11, 2019) (“[T]his [c]ourt lacks the authority to order the Bureau to transfer
[d]efendant to a residential re-entry center at this point in his incarceration.”). Even if the
Court retained jurisdiction over Bach’s petition, and he was eligible for home confinement,
it lacks the authority to grant Bach the relief he seeks.4 See Irvis v. Doerer, No. 5:24-CV-
01708, 2025 WL 465707, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2025) (ruling that even if the petitioner
was recommended for RRC placement, the court did not have the authority to require the
Bureau to place him there). As such, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Bach’s
petition, and it should be denied.
Finally, acknowledging that Bach remains in Bureau custody at the Phoenix RRC,5
the Court instructs Respondent to deliver a copy of his Return and Answer and this Report
and Recommendation to Bach within five (5) days of issuance of this recommendation and
to file a notice of compliance when completed.
4 Respondent’s records indicate Bach was reviewed for home confinement, but he was
determined ineligible. (Doc. 13-1 at 56.)
5 Federal Bureau of Prisons, Inmate Locator, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc//index.jsp
(last visited Mar. 12, 2026).
Case 4:25-cv-00067-AMM Document 16 Filed 03/13/26 Page 6 of 7

- 7 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Judge,
after her independent review, deny Bach’s § 2241 habeas petition (Doc. 1) and dismiss
with prejudice this case. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(b)(2), any party may serve and file written objections within fourteen (14)
days of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, and a party may
respond to another party’s objections with fourteen (14) days after being served with a
copy. No replies shall be filed unless leave is granted by the District Judge. If objections
are filed, the parties should use the following case number: CV-25-67-TUC-AMM.
Failure to file timely objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate
Judge may result in waiver of the right of de novo review.
Dated this 13th day of March, 2026.
Case 4:25-cv-00067-AMM Document 16 Filed 03/13/26 Page 7 of 7