Teal v. Outlaw et al
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION recommending that the Court dismiss 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, without prejudice, to permit the petitioner to pursue his administrative remedies. Objections to R&R due by 12/16/2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 12/2/08. (hph)
I N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E A S T E R N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS E A S T E R N DIVISION
C H A R L E S M. TEAL R e g # 04477-095 VS. NO. 2:08-CV-00091-JLH-BD
T .C . OUTLAW, Warden, Federal Correctional Complex, F o r r e s t City, Arkansas, et al.
R E C O M M E N D E D DISPOSITION
P r o c e d u r e for Filing Objections: T h e following recommended disposition has been sent to Chief United States
D istric t Judge J. Leon Holmes. Any party may file written objections to this re c o m m e n d a tio n . Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal b a sis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that f in d in g and the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your o b je c tio n s must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no later th a n eleven (11) days from the date you receive the Recommended Disposition. A copy w ill be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in w a iv e r of the right to appeal questions of fact.
M a il your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to: Clerk, United States District Court E a ste rn District of Arkansas 6 0 0 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 L ittle Rock, AR 72201-3325 II. B a c k gro u n d : P e titio n e r Charles M. Teal is currently serving a forty-one month sentence at the F e d e ra l Correctional Complex in Forrest City, Arkansas ("FCC-Forrest City"). Petitioner b rin g s this petition for writ of habeas corpus (#1) under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the m a n n e r in which Respondent is executing his sentence. Specifically, Petitioner claims th a t Respondent should compute his federal sentence to run concurrently with his L o u is ia n a state sentence so that he can receive credit for twenty-five months of jail time s e rv e d at various state facilities in Louisiana. Respondent disputes the merits of the P e titio n e r's argument and also contends the case should be dismissed because of P e titio n e r's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. For the reasons that follow, th e Court recommends that the District Court dismiss the petition without prejudice to a llo w Petitioner the opportunity to fully exhaust his administrative remedies. I I I. E x h a u s tio n of Administrative Remedies: T h e Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") is responsible for computing the sentence credit a f te r a defendant has begun serving his sentence. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 3 3 5 , 112 S.Ct. 1351 (1992). Prisoners are entitled to administrative review of the c o m p u ta tio n of their credits by the BOP under the procedure set forth in 28 C.F.R. 2
§ § 542.10-542.16. After properly exhausting administrative remedies, an inmate may s e e k judicial review by filing a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Wilson, 5 0 3 U.S. at 335, 112 S.Ct. 1351; United States v. Pardue, 363 F.3d 695, 699 (8th Cir. 2 0 0 4 ). The exhaustion requirement may be waived if the prisoner shows that attempting to exhaust would be futile. In this case, Petitioner acknowledges that he has not fully exhausted his a d m in is tra tiv e remedies. (#1 at pp. 1-3) Petitioner attaches a letter to his Petition which h e claims is his attempt to file an informal grievance with the BOP to resolve the alleged tim e computation issue. (#1 at pp. 13-14) He also attaches a motion he filed with the se n ten c in g court requesting that it order the BOP to give him credit for time served on his s ta te sentence, but which the trial court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (#1 at pp. 5, 11) In response to the Petition, Respondent attaches a declaration from Daniel R. S e v e rso n . Mr. Severson, a paralegal specialist with the BOP, affirms that, according to B O P records, Petitioner has not filed any grievances in the three-step administrative p ro c e s s required to exhaust administrative remedies. Petitioner claims that any attempt to follow the formal grievance procedure at this p o in t would be futile because, according to his calculations, he has very little time left to s e rv e on his forty-one month sentence. Petitioner may believe that the administrative p ro c e ss is futile. However, even assuming Petitioner's calculation of his sentence is c o rr e c t, there is still time remaining for Petitioner to exhaust his administrative remedies.
M o re o v e r, the BOP should be permitted an opportunity to fully assess the computation of P e titio n e r's sentence before a federal court intervenes. See United States v. Chappel, 208 F .3 d 1069, 1069 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (district court did not err in denying a f e d era l prisoner's motion seeking credit against his sentence because the prisoner had not e x h a u ste d his administrative remedies) (citing United States v. Iversen, 90 F.3d 1340, 1 3 4 4 (8th Cir. 1996) (holding the district court lacks authority to credit a defendant for p re v io u s detention if the claim is not first presented to the BOP); and Kendrick v. C a r ls o n , 995 F.2d 1440, 1447 (8th Cir. 1993) (federal prisoners seeking credit against a s e n te n c e must exhaust their administrative remedies before filing a habeas petition)). IV. C o n c lu s io n : B ec au se Petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies, the Court re c o m m e n d s that the District Court dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus without p re ju d ic e to permit the petitioner to pursue his administrative remedies. IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of December, 2008.
____________________________________ 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?