Scarffol v. Washington-Adduci
MEMORANDUM OPINION - Having reviewed and considered the relevant materials in the record, the Court adopts the magistrate judges report and accepts his recommendation. Accordingly, the Court will deny Ms. Scarffol's petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and dismiss this action with prejudice because those remedies are not available now to Ms. Scarffol. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 10/9/2019. (KEK)
2019 Oct-09 AM 11:18
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
AMBER C. SCARFFOL,
Case No.: 7:16-cv-1943-MHH-GMB
On May 21, 2019, the previously assigned magistrate judge entered a report
in which he recommended that the Court deny petition Amber Scarffol’s § 2241
habeas petition because Ms. Scarffol did not exhaust administrative remedies before
she filed her petition, and those administrative remedies no longer are available to
Ms. Scarffol. (Doc. 15). Judge Putnam advised the parties of their right to file
specific written objections within 14 days. (Doc. 15). The Court has not received
objections to the report.
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A
district court reviews legal conclusions in a report de novo and reviews for plain
error factual findings to which no objection is made. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d
776, 779 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749 (11th
Cir. 1988); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
Having reviewed and considered the relevant materials in the record, the Court
adopts the magistrate judge’s report and accepts his recommendation. Accordingly,
the Court will deny Ms. Scarffol’s petition for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies and dismiss this action with prejudice because those remedies are not
available now to Ms. Scarffol.1
A separate order will be entered.
DONE this 9th day of October, 2019.
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Court reiterates the magistrate judge’s discussion regarding the current state of precedent
concerning exhaustion of remedies in § 2241 habeas matters. The magistrate judge explained:
The court notes that the Supreme Court’s discussion of exhaustion of administrative
remedies in Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 83-84, 93 (2006), was limited expressly
to the statutory exhaustion required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act provision
at 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The Eleventh Circuit has held this provision does not apply
to § 2241 habeas petitions. Watkins v. Haynes, 445 Fed. App’x 181, 183-84 (11th
Cir. 2011) (citing Skinner v. Wiley, 355 F.3d 1293, 1294-95 (11th Cir. 2004)); see
also, Santiago-Lugo v. Warden, 785 F.3d 467, 474-75 (11th Cir. 2015).
Nevertheless, the court of appeals has cited to Woodford, albeit in an unpublished
decision, for guidance with respect to what it means to “properly” exhaust an
administrative remedy in § 2241 cases. See Davis v. Warden, FCC Coleman-USP
I, 661 F. App’x 561, 562 (11th Cir. 2016) (“In order to properly exhaust
administrative remedies, a petitioner must comply with an agency’s deadlines and
procedural rules. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90–91, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 2386,
165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (addressing the exhaustion requirement in the Prison
Litigation Reform Act).”).
(Doc. 15, p. 13 n.4).
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?