Keoni Payton v. Jeffrey Thomas

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. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEONI PAYTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JEFFREY THOMAS,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 11-35183
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00921-MO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Keoni Payton appeals from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
JAN 27 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-35183 2
Payton contends that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) exceeded its authority
by modifying his Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program (“RDAP”) treatment
plan to require that Payton repeat three months of treatment. The district court
correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BOP’s individualized
determination made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621. See 18 U.S.C. § 3625; Reeb v.
Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 2011). Additionally, the record does
not support Payton’s contention that the BOP acted unlawfully.
Payton further contends that he was retaliated against by being expelled
from RDAP. This claim is not properly before the court. See Park v. California,
202 F.3d 1146, 1155 (9th Cir. 2000) (refusing to consider claims not properly
raised in the habeas petition before the district court).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --