Audelio Arzola-Amaya v. U.s. Bureau of Prisons

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
AUDELIO ARZOLA-AMAYA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
U.S. BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-16035
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01305-JAT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Audelio Arzola-Amaya appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
JUL 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-16035 2
Arzola-Amaya seeks to compel the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to provide
him with good time credits he alleges he is entitled to by law because the BOP has
designated his life sentence at 45 years. The district court did not abuse its
discretion by dismissing the petition because Arzola-Amaya is bound by this
court’s earlier determination in affirming the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition that he is not entitled to good time credits. See Wilson v. Belleque, 554
F.3d 816, 830 (9th Cir. 2009). In addition, the record does not support his claim
that the BOP converted his life sentence to a 45-year fixed term. Thus, Arzola-
Amaya cannot satisfy the first element of mandamus relief requiring a “clear and
certain” claim as he does not have “legal entitlement to the relief sought.” Lowry
v. Barnhart, 329 F.3d 1019, 1021 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --