Dickerson v. Kizziah

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: 1. Dickerson's motion for another extension of time to file his reply brief 22 is DENIED. 2. Dickerson's petition for a writ of habeas corpus 1 is DENIED, without prejudice. 3. This action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from Court's docket. 4. A corresponding judgment will be entered this date. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 9/20/2017. (RCB)cc: COR, Dickerson via US mail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION at PIKEVILLE
WILLIAM DICKERSON,
Petitioner,

Civil Action No. 7:16-189-KKC

v.
GREGORY KIZZIAH, Warden,

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

Respondent.

*** *** *** ***
Inmate William Dickerson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 in which he challenges a prison disciplinary conviction he sustained while incarcerated at
the United States Penitentiary in Victorville, California. [R. 1]. The Government has responded
to Dickerson’s petition, and it argues, among other things, that Dickerson failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies before filing his petition. [R. 19]. While the Court initially ordered
Dickerson to reply to the Government’s response by no later than August 17, 2017, it later extended
that deadline to September 12, 2017. [R. 9, 21]. Dickerson, however, has not filed his reply brief.
Instead, he moves for another extension of time. [R. 22].
As an initial matter, the Court will deny Dickerson’s motion. That is because he has not
provided a sufficient justification for another extension of time. After all, Dickerson’s motion
mostly discusses conditions at the prison’s kitchen and does not sufficiently explain why he has
been unable to file a timely reply brief. [R. 22]. While Dickerson does say that his “institution is
on modified-movement” and claims that this “has severely limited [his] access to the prison law
library,” he fails to explain why he has not at least addressed the Government’s claim regarding

exhaustion; that, of course, would not require any legal research whatsoever. In short, the Court
has already granted Dickerson an extension of time to file his reply brief, and it finds that another
extension is not warranted in this case.
Ultimately, Dickerson was required to “first exhaust his administrative remedies before
filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas corpus relief.” Wade v. Perez, 14 F. App’x 330, 331
(6th Cir. 2001). Since the Government’s submission makes it clear that Dickerson failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies [R. 19], the Court will deny his petition without prejudice. See Wade,
14 F. App’x at 331-32 (affirming the district court’s decision to deny without prejudice a § 2241
petition challenging a prison disciplinary conviction because the prisoner “did not exhaust his
administrative appeals before filing his federal habeas petition”).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Dickerson’s motion for another extension of time to file his reply brief [R. 22] is
DENIED.
2. Dickerson’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus [R. 1] is DENIED, without prejudice.
3. This action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court’s docket.
4. A corresponding judgment will be entered this date.
Dated September 20, 2017.

2