Ronald Eugene Pierce v. J. E. THOMAS, Warden

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD EUGENE PIERCE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
J. E. THOMAS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 09-35781
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00705-MA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Malcolm F. Marsh, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 4, 2010
Portland, Oregon
Before: TASHIMA, PAEZ and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Ronald Eugene Pierce appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Like the district court, we conclude
that because Pierce was already transferred to a residential reentry center (“RRC”)
FILED
OCT 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

This case was argued together with Sass v. Thomas, Case No. 09-35830,1
and Sacora v. Thomas, Case No. 10-35553.
2
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3624, his claim is moot. Indeed, at this point Pierce is out
of the custody of the Bureau of Prisons altogether. Accordingly, we affirm.
We are not persuaded that the possibility of modifying the terms of Pierce’s
supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) constitutes an adequate remedy
preventing the case from being moot. Unlike the petitioners’ claims in Serrato v.
Clark, 486 F.3d 560 (9th Cir. 2007), and Mujahid v. Daniels, 413 F.3d 991 (9th
Cir. 2005), Pierce’s challenge does not implicate over-incarceration concerns.
Time served in an RRC pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3624 and 18 U.S.C. § 3621 is
merely a portion of the term of imprisonment, and therefore Pierce’s objection is to
the location of imprisonment and not the length of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3624(c)(1). Moreover, we conclude that there is no reasonable expectation that
Pierce will be subject to these RRC policies again, and that Pierce’s claims are not
“capable of repetition, yet evading review.” See Cox v. McCarthy, 829 F.2d 800,
803, 804 n.3 (9th Cir. 1987). Pierce’s substantive objections to the RRC policies
are adequately raised in Sacora v. Thomas, Case No. 10-35553.1
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --