Walker v. Maye

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Petitioner's motion 2 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot due to petitioner's payment of the filing fee. Petitioner shall advise the court on or before June 25, 2012, whether he filed a n administrative appeal following his receipt of the DHO reports and, if so, whether he has obtained a response. The failure to file a timely response may result in the dismissal of this matter without prejudice and without additional prior notice. Signed by Senior District Judge Richard D. Rogers on 6/11/2012. (Mailed to pro se party Michael John Walker by regular mail.) (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

MICHAEL JOHN WALKER,
Petitioner,
CIVIL ACTION
No. 12-3124-SAC

vs.
C. MAYE,

Respondent,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on a petition for habeas
corpus

filed

pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

§

2241.

Petitioner,

a

prisoner in federal custody, proceeds pro se and has submitted
the

filing

fee.

He

challenges

a

January

2012

disciplinary

hearing that resulted in sanctions including the loss of good
time credits.
The

petition

and

attachments

show

that

petitioner’s

administrative remedies were rejected due to his failure to
attach appropriate reports prepared by the discipline hearing
officer. Petitioner asserts this was due to the failure of that
officer to prepare the reports in a timely manner. It is
apparent the petitioner’s administrative appeal was rejected
without prejudice, as the form states, “You must wait for a copy

of your DHO report before filing your appeal. You will have 20
days from the date you receive it.” (Doc. 1, Attach. 1, Rejection Notice, March 23, 2012.)
Petitioner has since submitted the DHO report forms to the
court (Doc. 7), but it is not clear whether he has presented new
administrative appeals since his receipt of the reports.
The exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite
to federal habeas corpus relief sought under § 2241. See Garza
v. Davis, 596 F.3d 1198, 1203 (10th Cir.2010). A petitioner
satisfies this requirement by using “‘using all steps that the
agency holds out.’” Jones v. Davis, 366 Fed. Appx. 942, 944 (10th
Cir. 2010)(quoting Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006)).
Accordingly, the court will direct petitioner to supplement
the record with a statement of whether or not he has renewed his
administrative appeal following the receipt of the DHO reports.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED petitioner’s motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied as
moot due to petitioner’s payment of the filing fee.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED petitioner shall advise the court on
or before June 25, 2012, whether he filed an administrative
appeal following his receipt of the DHO reports, and, if so,
whether he has obtained a response. The failure to file a timely
response may result in the dismissal of this matter without
2

prejudice and without additional prior notice.
A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the petitioner.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

This 11th day of June, 2012, at Topeka, Kansas.

S/ Richard D. Rogers
RICHARD D. ROGERS
United States District Judge

3