Barry R. Schotz v. Craig Apker

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BARRY R. SCHOTZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CRAIG APKER,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 11-17096
D.C. No. 4:09-cv-00703-FRZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frank R. Zapata, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Barry R. Schotz appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
DEC 31 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-17096 2
Schotz contends that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) unlawfully refused his
request for a transfer to a Residential Re-entry Center (“RRC”). We review the
denial of a section 2241 habeas petition de novo and findings of fact for clear error.
See Reynolds v. Thomas, 603 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 2010). Schotz’s contention
fails because the district court did not clearly err in concluding that Schotz did not
make a direct request for placement in an RRC. In light of this conclusion, we do
not reach Schotz’s argument that the BOP violated 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) by failing
to consider him for RRC placement before the end of his sentence.
Schotz’s motion to take judicial notice of several documents that he filed
with this court is denied, and the government’s motion to strike these documents is
granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --