Floyd Adams v. Western District

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM ORDER: Directing plaintiff to amend petition. Pro Se Response due by 7/14/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph H L Perez-Montes on 6/14/2017. (crt,ThomasSld, T)

a
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
FLOYD ADAMS,
Petitioner

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-314-P

VERSUS

CHIEF JUDGE DEE D. DRELL

WARDEN,
Respondent

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus (28 U.S.C. § 2241) filed
by pro se Petitioner Floyd Adams (“Adams”) (#21104-078). Adams is an inmate in
the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), incarcerated at the Federal
Correctional Institution in Pollock, Louisiana. Adams challenges the calculation of
his sentence by the BOP.
I.

Background
Adams was convicted of possession of a stolen firearm, and sentenced to 120

months of imprisonment. (Case No. 6:13-cr-0037 E.D. Tex, Doc. 42). The court
recommended that “the Bureau of Prisons designate the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice – Institutional Division to be the place of service of this sentence,
thereby making this sentence concurrent with the defendant’s imprisonment or
future term of imprisonment pursuant to the judgment in Docket Number 40,144-A,
Possession of a Controlled Substance, 188th District Court, Gregg County, TX.” (Case
No. 6:13-cr-0037 E.D. Tex, Doc. 42).

Adams complains that he did not receive all the credit to which he was entitled.
Adams alleges that the state charges were ultimately dropped.
II.

Instructions to Amend
A petitioner seeking relief under § 2241 “must first exhaust his administrative

remedies through the Bureau of Prisons.” Rourke v. Thompson, 11 F.3d 47, 49 (5th
Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Gabor, 905 F.2d 76, 78 n. 2 (5th Cir. 1990));
United States v. Cleto, 956 F.2d 83, 84 (5th Cir. 1992) (holding that exhaustion of
administrative remedies is a prerequisite to § 2241 relief). An exception to this
requirement may be made if the petitioner demonstrates “extraordinary
circumstances” such as the unavailability of administrative remedies, the
inappropriateness of the remedies, or the futility of pursuing such remedies. Fuller
v. Rich, 11 F.3d 61, 62 (5th Cir. 1994). Exceptions to the exhaustion requirement
apply only in “extraordinary circumstances.” See Castano v. Everhart, 235 F. App’x
206, 207 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Fuller, 11 F.3d at 62).
Adams was ordered to amend his petition to show he completely exhausted his
administrative remedies through each level of the BOP’s administrative remedy
process. (Doc. 4). Adams was instructed to provide copies of his administrative
grievances and the responses received at each level. (Doc. 4).
In response to the Court’s order, Adams provided copies of his administrative
remedies showing that he exhausted only through the regional level of the
administrative remedy process. (Doc. 5). Adams does not indicate that he appealed
the Regional Director’s decision to the National Director. Nor does Adams

2

demonstrate extraordinary circumstances that kept him from completely exhausting
his claim.
Adams shall amend his complaint to state whether or not he completely
exhausted by appealing to the national level. If so, Adams shall state the date on
which he submitted the appeal to the national level, and shall submit copies of the
appeal and the response from the National Director.
III.

Conclusion
IT IS ORDERED that Adams amend his complaint within thirty (30) days of

the filing of this Order to provide the information outlined above. Adams failure to
comply with this second order to amend may result in the dismissal of this action
under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
14th
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers in Alexandria, Louisiana, this ____
day of June, 2017.
____________________________________
Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes
United States Magistrate Judge

3