John Michael Crim v. MICHAEL L. BENOV, Warden

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOHN MICHAEL CRIM,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL L. BENOV, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 11-16458
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-01600-OWW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 6, 2012**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner John Michael Crim appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
MAR 09 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-16458 2
Crim contends that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) was required to designate
the programs that would qualify him for the full 12-month placement in a
Residential Reentry Center (“RRC”), under the Second Chance Act of 2007
(“SCA”). The district court did not err in dismissing Crim’s petition because the
SCA does not mandate that the BOP designate which of its programs would make
a prisoner eligible for placement in an RRC. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 17501-17555; 18
U.S.C. § 3624(c).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --