Searcy v. USA
MEMORANDUM ORDER: Directing plaintiff to amend complaint/petition. Pro Se Response due by 8/10/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph H L Perez-Montes on 7/11/2017. (crt,ThomasSld, T)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KENNON DUTWAIN SEARCY,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-745-P
CHIEF JUDGE DEE D. DRELL
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES
Before the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus (28 U.S.C. § 2241) filed
by pro se Petitioner Kennon Dutwain Searcy (“Searcy”) (#43360-177). Searcy is an
inmate in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), incarcerated at the
Federal Correctional Institution in Pollock, Louisiana. Searcy challenges the
calculation of his sentence by the BOP.
Searcy was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine,
and was sentenced to 200 months of imprisonment. (Case No. 4:11-cr-0136 E.D. Tex.,
Doc. 50). The court noted: “The term of imprisonment imposed by this judgment shall
run consecutively to sentences imposed in Cause Number F-95-01394 in Dallas
County Criminal District Court #5 and Cause Number F-06-3867 in 195th Judicial
District Court of Dallas County, Dallas, Texas.” (Case No. 4:11-cr-0136 E.D. Tex.,
Searcy alleges he was in state prison when he was transferred to federal
custody for his federal prosecution. Searcy complains that he did not receive all the
credit to which he is entitled toward his federal sentence.
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).
Searcy does not mention whether he pursued his claim through the BOP’s
administrative remedies. Searcy must amend his petition to show that he completely
exhausted his administrative remedies at each level of the BOP’s administrative
remedy process. Searcy shall provide copies of his administrative grievances and the
responses received at each level. If Searcy did not exhaust, he must demonstrate the
futility of administrative review.
IT IS ORDERED that Searcy amend his petition within thirty (30) days of the
filing of this Order to provide the information outlined above, or dismissal of this
action will be recommended under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers in Alexandria, Louisiana, this ____
day of July, 2017.
Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes
United States Magistrate Judge
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?