Snowden v. Keller (INMATE3)

Filing 5

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Roy Pierce Snowden; it is the Recommendation of the Mag Judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice to afford Snowden an opportunity to exhaust his administrative remedies in accordance with the procedures established by the BOP; Objections to R&R due by 9/23/2008. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 9/10/08. (vma, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION R O Y PIERCE SNOWDEN, P e titio n e r, v J.A. KELLER, R e sp o n d e n t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No.2:08cv665-TMH (WO)

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE T h is cause is before the court on a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas corpus relief filed on or around August 8, 2008, by federal inmate Roy Pierce Snowden ("Snowden"). S n o w d e n argues that a Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") decision excluding him from p a rtic ip a tio n in the Residential Drug Abuse Program violates his constitutional rights. DISCUSSION In his pleadings, Snowden concedes that he has not yet exhausted his available a d m in is tra tiv e remedies with respect to the claims presented in his petition. (See Doc. No. 2 at p. 3.) 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). The BOP has established regulations that set f o rth the procedures that a prisoner must follow before seeking relief from a district court. S e e 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.10 et seq.; United States v. Lucas, 898 F.2d 1554, 1556 (11 th Cir. 1 9 9 0 ). These regulations govern formal review of inmate complaints relating to any aspect

o f their imprisonment and specify the procedures that inmates must pursue before attempting to seek relief in federal court. United States v. Herrera, 931 F.2d 761, 764 (11 th Cir. 1991). If , and only if, an inmate has pursued his administrative remedy may he seek relief in federal c o u rt. Id. "Exhaustion of administrative remedies is jurisdictional" when a petition is filed p u rs u a n t to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for release from federal prison. Gonzalez, 959 F.2d at 212; W in c k v. England, 327 F.3d 1296, 1300 n.1 (11 th Cir. 2003). T h is court does not deem it appropriate to rule on the merits of Snowden's claims w ith o u t first requiring that he exhaust available administrative procedures established by the B O P . Consequently, the Magistrate Judge concludes that the petition for habeas corpus relief sh o u ld be dismissed without prejudice so that Snowden can pursue his available a d m in is tra tiv e remedies. CONCLUSION A c c o r d in g ly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case b e dismissed without prejudice to afford Snowden an opportunity to exhaust his a d m in is tra tiv e remedies in accordance with the procedures established by the BOP. It is further ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to the said Recommendation on o r before September 23, 2008. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, co n clus ive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are

2

a d v is e d that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not a p p e a la b le . F a ilu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the M a g is tra te Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the D is t r i c t Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from a tta c k in g on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the D istrict Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

W a in w r ig h t, 677 F.2d 404 (5 th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 3 3 (11 th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 th Cir. 1981, en b a n c ), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed d o w n prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. D o n e this 10th day of September, 2008.

/s/Wallace Capel, Jr. WALLACE CAPEL, JR. U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3