UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA WESTERN DIVISION

APRIL PAW, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. 7:24-cv-470-AMM-SGC ) WARDEN K. NEELY, et al., ) ) Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to

by April Paw, a federal prisoner incarcerated in this district. In general terms, Ms. Paw seeks, under provisions of the First Step Act, transfer to a prison closer to her home in Minnesota. The magistrate judge entered a report on January 30, 2025, recommending the claims presented in this matter be denied. Doc. 13. Ms. Paw has filed objections. Doc. 14. As an initial matter, Ms. Paw takes issue with several procedural aspects of her case: (1) the referral of the petition to a magistrate judge; (2) the duration of the objection period; and (3) the failure to appoint counsel.

. Referral of this matter to a magistrate judge for a preliminary report and recommendation complies with federal law and comports with the usual practices of this court.

(b); Local Rule 72.1. Regarding the fourteen-day objection period, Ms. Paw did not move for an extension of the deadline, instead filing competent objections.1 Finally, nowhere in her various filings has Ms. Paw requested appointment of

counsel. Docs. 1, 5, 8, 10–12. In any event, neither additional time nor appointment of counsel would alter the result here in light of the governing law. Accordingly, to the extent Ms. Paw objects on these procedural bases, the objections lack merit.

Substantively, Ms. Paw’s objections focus on statutory language providing the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) “shall” house inmates in prisons located close to their residences in certain circumstances. Doc. 14 at 3–4.2 Ms. Paw contends this mandatory language overrides the BOP policy forbidding “closer to home” transfers

for prisoners—like herself—subject to detainer by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”).

.3 As explained in the report and recommendation, this argument fails. First, the statutory language on which Ms. Paw relies is subject to

numerous conditions left to BOP’s discretion; it does not require BOP to house a

1 Ms. Paw’s objections are self-contradictory regarding chronology. Ms. Paw states she did not receive the magistrate judge’s report until February 4, 2025. Doc. 14 at 1. However, Ms. Paw dated her objections as signed on February 2, 2025, two days prior to her claimed receipt of the report.

.

2 The petition relied on

(b). Doc. 1 at 6; see Doc. 12 at 11. In her objections, Ms. Paw contends

requires her transfer. See Doc. 14 at 4.

3 See BOP Program Statement 5100.08, CN-1, Inmate Security Designation and Custody Classification (Sept. 4, 2019) (“Inmates with an Order for Deportation, an Order of Removal, an ICE detainer for an unadjudicated offense(s) or an ICE detainer for a hearing will not be transferred for nearer release purposes since they will be returning to the community outside, rather than inside, the United States upon release.”); Doc. 7-1 at 2. prisoner at any particular prison.

(b).* Indeed, the same code subsection Ms. Paw relies upon as requiring BOP to transfer her also provides, “Tnjotwithstanding any other provision of law, a designation of a place of imprisonment under this subsection is not reviewable by any court.” Jd. For the foregoing reasons, and because a prisoner has no constitutional right to be transferred to a particular prison, Ms. Paw’s claims fail. See Olim v. Wakinekona,

(1983); Meachum v. Fano,

, 223- 25 (1976); Herrera v. Johns, No. 513-031,

, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 8, 2013). Accordingly, Ms. Paw’s objections are OVERRULED. After consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court ADOPTS the report and ACCEPTS the recommendation. Consistent with that recommendation, the claims presented in this petition will be denied. A separate order will be entered. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of March, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

* To the extent Ms. Paw now contends Section 3632 requires her transfer, that section merely requires BOP to “consider[]” transferring certain inmates, subject to a number of considerations left to the agency’s discretion.

(d)(2).