James Andre Black v. Cynthia Entzel

Filing 13

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald, re: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 1 . The Court concludes that Petitioner failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies before filing this action. The governments motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mz)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

JAMES ANDRE BLACK,

14

Petitioner,

15
16
17

Case No. EDCV 17-1158 MWF (MRW)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.
CYNTHIA ENTZEL,
Respondent.

18
19

This is a habeas action brought by a federal prisoner. Petitioner claims he is

20

entitled to sentence credits for time served in state custody before the start of his

21

federal sentence.

22

However, Petitioner failed to properly present or exhaust his claim

23

administratively within the Bureau of Prisons before commencing the federal

24

action. For this reason, the Court dismisses the action without prejudice.

25

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

26

Petitioner is serving a 300-month federal prison term for bank robbery and

27

assault. At the time of his federal sentencing in 2007, Petitioner was serving a

28

state term of imprisonment. (Docket # 10 at 4.) The federal sentencing judge

1

expressly stated that Petitioner’s federal sentence was to be “served consecutive to

2

the undischarged state term of imprisonment.” (Id.)

3

Beginning in late 2016, Petitioner filed requests with personnel at FCI

4

Victorville to recalculate his sentence and give him credit for time served in state

5

custody before beginning his consecutive federal sentence. After a staff member

6

denied relief, Petitioner received a similar denial of his request from the warden of

7

the institution in January 2017. (Docket # 10-1 at 14, 16.)1

8
9

Petitioner appealed the decision to the BOP’s Western Regional Office
(first-level appeal). That office rejected the appeal because Petitioner failed to

10

provide copies of the underlying administrative request and the warden’s decision.

11

The regional office also rejected the appeal because it was untimely (not received

12

within 20 days of the warden’s decision) and without explanation for the delay.

13

(Docket # 10-1 at 18.) Petitioner never resubmitted his first-level appeal. He also

14

never sought a second-level administrative appeal to the BOP’s General Counsel in

15

Washington, D.C. (Docket # 10 at 3.)

16

Instead, Petitioner filed this petition for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

17

The petition seeks an order from the Court directing the BOP to credit him for the

18

time served in state custody. (Docket # 1 at 3.) The government moved to dismiss

19

the action due to Petitioner’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies before

20

initiating habeas review in federal court. The government argues that Petitioner

21

still is entitled (and required) to pursue his first- and second-level administrative

22

appeals. (Docket # 10 at 8-10.)

23
24

Petitioner claims that he filed his first-level appeal on time. Based on the
BOP’s rejection of the appeal, he contends that further administrative appeals

25
26
27
28

1

The thrust of the adverse decisions was that the time Petitioner served
in state custody was credited against his state sentence. The BOP staff concluded
that Petitioner could not get “double credit” for this time against his federal
sentence too. (Docket # 10-1 at 14); 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b).
2

1

would be futile, so this Court may consider the merits of his claim. (Docket # 12

2

at 2.)

3

DISCUSSION

4

Applicable Law

5

The BOP has administrative procedures for federal prisoners “to seek formal

6

review of an issue relating to any aspect of his/her own confinement.” 28 C.F.R.

7

§ 542.10-19 (2012); Martinez v. Roberts, 804 F.2d 570, 571 (9th Cir. 1986). The

8

regulations require an inmate to appeal an adverse administrative decision to the

9

Regional Director of the BOP “within 20 calendar days of the date the Warden

10

signed the response.” 28 C.F.R. § 542.15. An inmate “who is not satisfied with

11

the Regional Director’s response” may appeal to the BOP’s General Counsel. That

12

appeal is “the final administrative appeal.” Id. The regulatory time limits can be

13

extended when the inmate demonstrates a valid reason for delay. Id. Valid

14

reasons include circumstances that prevented the inmate from filing on time.

15

28 C.F.R. § 542.14(b).

16

Federal prisoners generally must exhaust their administrative remedies

17

before filing a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Martinez, 804 F.2d

18

at 571; Jiau v. Poole, 590 F. App’x 689, 690 (9th Cir. 2015). Because exhaustion

19

is not a jurisdictional requirement, the district court has discretion to dismiss an

20

unexhausted § 2241 petition without prejudice, or excuse the requirement and

21

reach the merits. Jiau, 590 F. App’x at 690; Pavlovich v. Johnson, No. CV 16-749

22

PSG (SS), 2016 WL 3410195 at *2 (C.D. Cal. 2016).

23

Typically, though, a court’s discretion to excuse the failure to exhaust is

24

limited to situations where administrative remedies are inadequate or ineffective,

25

pursuing them would be futile, or irreparable injury would result. Pavlovich, 2016

26

WL 3410195 at *2; Laing v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 994, 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2004). One

27

key consideration is whether “relaxation of the requirement would encourage the

28
3

1

deliberate bypass of the administrative scheme.” Laing, 370 F.3d at 1000 (citation

2

omitted).

3

Analysis

4

Petitioner concedes that his claim is unexhausted. (Docket # 12 at 1.) He

5

asks that his failure to exhaust his claim “be excused because the administrative

6

remedy was effectively unavailable” to him. (Id. at 2.)

7

Petitioner’s request is without merit. He doesn’t deny that he failed to

8

properly present the materials underlying his claim to the BOP regional office. He

9

does deny that his claim was untimely, but he doesn’t explain why he took no steps

10

to correct the BOP’s conclusion or (if his appeal actually was late) to demonstrate

11

why he was unable to file his request on time. He also did not pursue his claim to

12

a second-level appeal with the BOP’s national office. As a result, the failure to

13

exhaust his claim falls squarely in Petitioner’s lap.

14

Importantly, the government’s submission in this Court strongly suggests

15

that he may still avail himself of the administrative review process. The

16

government states that, should Petitioner re-submit a proper request to the BOP’s

17

regional office, the BOP wishes to “be provided with a full opportunity to consider

18

Petitioner’s request before he turns to this Court for relief.” (Docket # 10 at 10.)

19

That appears to conform to the federal regulations that allow Petitioner to re-

20

submit his appeal (with adequate supporting documents) and demonstrate a valid

21

reason for the delay. 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.14(b), 542.15. Petitioner can also file an

22

appeal to the Office of General Counsel.2 28 C.F.R. § 542.15.

23

The Court concludes that the petition is subject to dismissal due to lack of

24

exhaustion. Martinez, 804 F.2d at 571; Jiau, 590 F. App’x at 690; 28 C.F.R.

25

§ 542.15. Further, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to excuse

26
27
28

2

Regardless of the forum, the BOP should closely examine Petitioner’s
contention that he submitted his original appeal to the regional office on
January 12, but that it was not received until February 3, 2017. (Docket # 12 at 2,
attachment.)
4

1

Petitioner’s failure to exhaust. Petitioner offers no proof that pursuing an

2

additional administrative appeal would be futile or that the agency’s administrative

3

process is inadequate. Under the circumstances, the Court will not allow Petitioner

4

to “bypass” the administrative exhaustion process here. Laing, 370 F.3d

5

at 1000-01.

6

CONCLUSION

7

The Court concludes that Petitioner failed to properly exhaust his

8

administrative remedies before filing this action. The government’s motion to

9

dismiss is GRANTED. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12
13

Dated: October 2, 2017

14

___________________________________
HON. MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19

Presented by:

20
21
22
23

____________________________________
HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
5