KLUG v. OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM OPINION accompanying final order issued separately this day. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 9/16/16.(ah)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ________________________________ JOSEPH EMIL KLUG, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Respondent. __________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 15-1811 (EGS) MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner Joseph Emil Klug is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se. He filed this mandamus action to compel the Bureau of Prisons’ Office of General Counsel to act on his two administrative appeals, Numbers 807592 and 809217, submitted on March 23, 2015, and April 19, 2015, respectively. Petitioner seeks to have BOP “acknowledge receipt of and reply to” his appeals, allow him to resubmit the appeals if not received, or declare his administrative remedies exhausted so that he can satisfy the prerequisite for filing suit in federal court. Compl. at 1-2. Pending is BOP’s Motion to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction [Dkt. 13]. According to BOP’s declarant, the General Counsel received petitioner’s appeals on March 30, 2015, and April 27, 2015. By regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 542.18, an inmate’s administrative remedies are effectively exhausted if the General Counsel, as the final arbiter of such matters, fails to provide a response within 60 days of its receipt of an appeal (inclusive of a one-time 20 day extension). BOP acknowledges that it has not responded to petitioner’s appeals, thereby rendering petitioner’s administrative remedies exhausted. See Decl. 1 of Richard J. Hansford [Dkt. 13-1]. Consequently, this case will be dismissed as moot. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. SIGNED: EMMET G. SULLIVAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATE: September 16, 2016 2

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?