Harris v. Outlaw

Filing 6

ORDER directing petitioner to submit a response to 5 Response to Habeas Petition filed by T C Outlaw on or before 8/14/12. Signed by Magistrate Judge H. David Young on 7/16/12. (vjt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EASTERN DIVISION

ARTHELL HARRIS

VS.

PETITIONER

CASE NO. 2:12CV00106 SWW/HDY

T.C. OUTLAW,
WARDEN, FCI FORREST
CITY, ARKANSAS

RESPONDENT

ORDER
The petitioner, in federal custody at FCI Forrest City, has filed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Mr. Harris alleges that he is entitled to a sentence
reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e) as a result of his participation in the Residential Drug
Abuse Program. He contends that the Bureau of Prisons wrongly ruled him ineligible for early
release consideration due to a prior conviction for robbery and his conviction for possession of
firearms. The respondent counters that the petition should be dismissed because the petitioner
failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies. In support of the motion to dismiss the
respondent has submitted documents which indicate the petitioner filed an Administrative
Remedy Request and one appeal but did not file a final appeal with the Office of General
Counsel.
A prisoner is typically required to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing a
petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See United States v. Chappel, 208 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir.
2000). A prisoner aggrieved by an action of the BOP is required to exhaust his administrative
1

remedies by presenting his grievance to the BOP in accordance with the provisions of the
administrative procedure codified at 28 C.F.R. § 542.10 through 542.19. Under the procedure,
the prisoner first seeks informal resolution of his grievance with the prison staff. If informal
resolution fails, the prisoner then pursues a three-step process within the prescribed time
intervals. The prisoner formally appeals to the Warden, then to the Regional Director, and last to
the Office of General Counsel. The prisoner’s administrative remedies have not been exhausted
until his grievance has been filed and denied at each step. See Ortiz v. Fleming, 2004 WL
389076 (N.D. Texas 2004).
In this instance, the petitioner will be allowed to respond to the allegation that he has
failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies. The petitioner is directed to submit a
response on or before August 14, 2012, addressing this issue. The failure to adequately exhaust
administrative remedies may result in dismissal of the petition.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16

day of July, 2012.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2