NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RYAN FRANK BONNEAU, No. 18-35705
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:18-cv-00810-MO
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOSIAS SALAZAR, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 20, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, TROTT, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Ryan Frank Bonneau appeals from the district court’s
August 9, 2018 denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction in his pending
petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Am. Hotel &
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Lodging Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles, 834 F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir. 2016). We
affirm.
Because Bonneau failed to establish that such relief is warranted, the district
court correctly exercised its discretion by denying Bonneau’s motion for a
preliminary injunction directing the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to release him to
home confinement. See Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953,
958 (9th Cir. 2014) (plaintiff seeking preliminary injunction must establish that he
is likely to succeed on the merits, he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the
absence of preliminary relief, the balance of equities tips in his favor, and an
injunction is in the public interest). The district court properly denied preliminary
injunctive relief in Bonneau’s pending 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition because he did
not show a likelihood of success on the merits. 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2) barred the
BOP from placing him in home confinement for more than six months or 10
percent of the underlying sentence, whichever is less. Accordingly, Bonneau’s
argument that the BOP “defied a direct order by the Judicial Branch” is immaterial.
Notwithstanding the district court’s intention to split his sentence as the judge
indicated, federal law forbids the BOP from placing Bonneau in home confinement
for more than 2.4 months.
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
DA/Pro Se 2
AFFIRMED.
DA/Pro Se 3