Germany v. Keller (INMATE3)
ORDER re 13 Response to Habeas Petition, filed by J. A. Keller Reply Brief due by 10/6/2008. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 9/19/08. (vma, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION J E F F GERMANY, Petitioner, v J.A. KELLER, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Civil Action No. 2:08cv595-WHA (W O )
ORDER R e sp o n d e n t has filed an answer (Doc. No. 13) addressing the claims presented in the in s ta n t 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. In this answer, Respondent contends that th e petition for habeas corpus relief is due to be denied because Petitioner is entitled to no re lie f on the claims presented therein. Specifically, Respondent argues (a) that Petitioner has n o t exhausted his administrative remedies regarding the issues raised in his petition, as P etitio n er's appeal to the Regional Director is currently pending; (b) that the appellate court d e c isio n s relied upon by Petitioner as a basis for relief are not controlling in Eleventh Circuit; ( c ) that the BOP's authority to promulgate and administer regulations regarding early release c riter ia under RDAP are entirely discretionary; and (d) that Petitioner has failed to set forth f a c ts demonstrating any violation of his equal protection rights. U p o n review of the petition, Respondent's answer, and the supporting evidentiary m a ter ial filed in this case, it appears that Petitioner has not yet exhausted his available
a d m in is tra tiv e remedies with respect to the claims presented in his petition for habeas corpus r e lie f . A federal prisoner who requests habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must f irs t exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking relief from this court. Gonzalez v. U n ite d States, 959 F.2d 211 (11 th Cir. 1992). This court does not deem it appropriate to rule o n the merits of Petitioner's claims without first requiring that he exhaust his administrative r e m e d i e s. A c c o r d in g ly, it is ORDERED that on or before October 6, 2008, Petitioner shall file a reply to R esp o n d en t's answer. In his reply, Petitioner shall specifically show cause why his petition s h o u ld not be dismissed for his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies and for th e other reasons stated by Respondent. Any documents or evidence filed after October 6, 2 0 0 8 , will not be considered by the court except in exceptional circumstances. At any time af ter the deadline for filing a reply expires, the court will determine whether an evidentiary h e a rin g is necessary. If it appears that an evidentiary hearing is not required, the court will d i s p o s e of the petition as justice requires. Cf. Rule 8(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 C a s e s in the United States District Courts. P etitio n er is instructed that when replying to Respondent's answer, he may file sworn a f f id a v its or other documents in support of his claims. Affidavits should set forth specific f a cts which demonstrate that Petitioner is entitled to relief on the grounds presented in the h ab ea s corpus petition. If documents that have not previously been filed with the court are
re f erre d to in the affidavits, sworn or certified copies of those papers must be attached to the a f f id a v its or served with them. When Petitioner attacks Respondent's answer by use of a f f id a v its or other documents, the court will, at the appropriate time, consider whether to e x p a n d the record to include such materials. Cf. Rule 7, Rules Governing Section 2254 C a se s in the United States District Courts. D o n e this 19 th day of September, 2008.
/s/Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?