Allen v. Keller (INMATE 3)

Filing 17

ORDER; that the objections are overruled, the court adopts the 15 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby ORDERED that this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas corpus relief is DISMISSED without prejudice because Allen has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies in accordance with the procedures established by the Bureau of Prisons. Signed by Honorable W. Harold Albritton, III on 8/17/2010. (jg, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION BRINSON ALLEN, Petitioner, vs. J. A. KELLER, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10cv322-WHA (WO) ORDER This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #15) and the Defendant's objections thereto (Doc. #16). Upon a thorough independent evaluation of the entire file and a de novo review, the court finds that the objections are due to be overruled. The objections are interesting but ultimately without merit. In the Northern District of Georgia, there has been a difference of opinion about whether Gonzales really means what it says in its use of the term "jurisdiction." Coneway v. Grayer, 2009 WL 2192589 (N.D.Ga., July 20, 2009); Galaviz v. Zenk, 2007 WL 2422049 (N.D.Ga., June 25, 2007). Regardless of that debate among the district judges, Skinner v. Wiley, 355 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2004); Gonzalez v United States, 959 F.2d 211 (11th Cir. 1992), plainly settle the question about whether exhaustion is required. Therefore, the objections are overruled, the court adopts the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby ORDERED that this 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition for habeas corpus relief is DISMISSED without prejudice because Allen has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies in accordance with the procedures established by the Bureau of Prisons. DONE this 17th day August, 2010. /s/ W. Harold Albritton W. HAROLD ALBRITTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?