Holly Koliopoulos v. PAUL COPENHAVER and HARLEY LAPPIN

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HOLLY KOLIOPOULOS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
PAUL COPENHAVER and HARLEY
LAPPIN,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 10-17414
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-04276-MHP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Marilyn H. Patel, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Holly Koliopoulos appeals pro se from the judgment of the district court
denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We affirm in part, dismiss in part,
and deny in part.
Koliopoulos contends that the Bureau of Prison’s (“BOP’s”) policy of
considering inmates for pre-release to a Residential Reentry Center (“RRC”) 17 to
19 months before their projected release dates denies inmates participating in a
FILED
DEC 30 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-17414 2
Residential Drug Abuse Program (“RDAP”) the opportunity to receive the full
twelve-month RRC placement permitted by 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c). We do not
consider this contention because there is no federal jurisdiction over the claim, see
Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2011) (no habeas jurisdiction over
challenges to exercise of BOP discretion under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621-24); Lujan v.
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (no constitutional jurisdiction
absent injury that is actual or imminent, not merely hypothetical), and,
furthermore, we do not ordinarily consider on appeal claims not raised in an
inmate’s habeas petition, see Moor v. Palmer, 603 F.3d 658, 660 (9th Cir. 2010).
In her brief and in a separate request filed on February 15, 2011,
Koliopoulos also asks us to issue an order compelling the BOP to enroll her in
RDAP before May 2012. We lack jurisdiction to issue such an order, see Reeb,
636 F.3d at 1228, and, accordingly, deny the request.
Koliopoulos has not argued in her appeal the merits of the claims raised in
her habeas petition. Ordinarily, issues not argued in the opening brief are deemed
forfeited. See Koerner v. Grigas, 328 F.3d 1039, 1048-49 (9th Cir. 2003). In any
case, we have reviewed the record and find no error in the district court’s denial of
her petition. See Sacora v. Thomas, 628 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2010).
DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part; AFFIRMED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --