Morrison v. Stamper (INMATE 1)

Filing 55

ORDER: it is ORDERED that: 1) Petitioner's 52 Objection to the Recommendation is OVERRULED; 2) The 51 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; 3) The 28 USC 2241 1 petition for habeas corpus relief is DENIED; 4) This case is DISMISSED with prejudice; A separate Final Judgment will be entered in accordance with this order. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 10/29/2018. (alm, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
LARRY MORRISON,
Reg. No. 43820-112,
Petitioner,
v.
WALTER WOODS,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:16-CV-957-WHA

ORDER
This 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus is before the court on the
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #51), entered on October 11, 2018, and
Petitioner’s Objection (Doc. #52), filed on October 19, 2018. The court has conducted an
independent evaluation and de novo review of the file in this case and finds as follows:
Larry Morrison, a federal inmate confined in the Maxwell Federal Prison Camp at
the time he filed this civil action, presents numerous challenges to the constitutionality of
actions taken against him during his participation in the Residential Drug Abuse Program
(“RDAP”) while at Maxwell. 1 Morrison, however, voluntarily withdrew from RDAP
prior to his completion of the program. Despite his withdrawal from the program,
Morrison seeks one-year off his sentence — a sentence reduction available to inmates
who complete RDAP. Doc. #1 at 17.
1

Morrison is now enrolled in the Residential Re-Entry Management Program in Los Angeles County,
California, a program operated by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”).

In the Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends denial of the habeas
petition and dismissal of this case because Morrison failed to properly and fully exhaust
the administrative remedies provided to him by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) prior to
filing this petition. Doc. #51 at 24–25. It is also noted in the Recommendation that the
actions about which Morrison complains did not deprive him of any constitutionally
protected interest because such actions were based on Morrison’s inappropriate behavior
while in RDAP. Doc. #51 at 24, n.3.
The majority of Petitioner’s Objection points to contradictions in information
provided by BOP officials, including RDAP records, and Petitioner’s recollection of
events set forth in his responses and affidavits before the court. Doc. #52 at 1–3. The
court finds that these arguments do not undermine the findings contained in the
Recommendation.

As to the lack of exhaustion, Morrison concedes his failure to

properly exhaust his administrative remedies and specifically acknowledges his failure to
comply with instructions issued by the Central Office. Id. at 3. He argues the Central
Office should have accepted his appeals but, instead, returned them to him for correction.
Id. Morrison, as he did in his petition and responses, asserts he believed his actions
constituted proper exhaustion or that it was otherwise impossible to exhaust his remedies.
Id. at 3–4.
The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determination “that Morrison failed to
properly exhaust the three-level administrative remedy established by the BOP regarding
the claims presented in his habeas petition.

2

Thus, Morrison has not satisfied the

requirement that he exhaust his available remedies before seeking habeas corpus relief in
this court.” Doc. #51 at 24. The court likewise finds, as did the Magistrate Judge, that
“Morrison has . . . failed to establish circumstances justifying waiver of the exhaustion
requirement.” Id. Finally, the court agrees “it is undisputed that Morrison did not
complete RDAP. Absent completion of RDAP, Morrison is not eligible for the sentence
reduction sought in this petition.” Doc. #51 at 24.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1.

Petitioner’s Objection to the Recommendation is OVERRULED.

2.

The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED.

3.

The 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas corpus relief filed by Petitioner
is DENIED.

4.

This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

A separate Final Judgment will be entered in accordance with this order.
DONE this 29th day of October, 2018.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton
SENIORUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3