Knox v. Donnellon

Filing 5

OPINION and ORDER summarily dismissing without prejudice 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Signed by District Judge Bernard A. Friedman. (CMul)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RAYMONE KNOX,
Petitioner,

Civil Action No. 15-cv-13531

vs.

HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

TIM DONNELLON,
Respondent.
___________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
This matter is presently before the Court on Raymone Knox’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court must conduct a preliminary review of the
petition to determine whether “it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits
annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules
Governing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cases (applicable to § 2241 petitions under Rule 1(b)). The district
court may summarily dismiss a petition if it appears from the face of the petition that petitioner is
not entitled to relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Blevins v. Lamanna, 23 F. App’x 216, 218 (6th Cir.
2001). However, the Court must keep in mind that pro se pleadings are held to “less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
The allegations of a pro se habeas petition, “though vague and conclusory, are entitled to a liberal
construction.” Franklin v. Rose, 765 F.2d 82, 85 (6th Cir. 1985) (quoting Burris v. United States,
430 F.2d 399, 403 (7th Cir. 1970)).

“The appropriate liberal construction requires active

interpretation in some cases to [] construe a pro se habeas petition[.]” Id.
Knox claims that he is being held in the St. Clair County Jail without due process of

law. He claims that he was brought to the jail on May 7, 2015, due to an unknown federal hold and
that he should have been released from Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) custody on October 16,
2015. In support of his position, Knox has attached to his petition a document entitled “Sentence
Monitoring Computation Data as of 07-29-2015” that appears to have been calculated by the BOP
on May 27, 2015. This document indicates October 16, 2015, as Knox’s projected release date.
Knox, however, asserts that the BOP’s website is inconsistent with his projected October release
date because it states that December 18, 2015, is his release date. Thus, it appears that Knox is
contesting the BOP’s calculation of his release date.
Federal courts require inmates seeking habeas corpus relief to exhaust their
administrative remedies before filing a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See, e.g., Campbell v.
Barron, 87 F. App’x 577, 577 (6th Cir. 2004). “The exhaustion requirement is designed to ensure
not only that the agency be given the opportunity to review its conclusions short of litigation, but
also that the district court be provided a complete record upon which to review the agency’s final
action.” Bethea v. DeWalt, 09-CV0250-JBC, 2010 WL 55924, at *2 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 4, 2010). Issues
relating to the BOP’s calculation of an inmates’s release date must be exhausted through the BOP’s
administrative remedy process before seeking judicial relief. See Ores v. Warden, FCI Texarkana,
50 F.3d 10, at *1 (6th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, a court does not have the authority to compute
sentence credits under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), as that task is reserved for the Attorney General, through
the BOP. See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 334-35 (1992).
Knox has failed to plead any facts showing that he has exhausted the BOP’s
administrative remedy process, see 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.10-19, before filing his habeas corpus petition.
Although Knox has submitted with his petition a “kite” showing that he asked the St. Clair County

2

Jail when he would be released, this “kite” does not satisfy the exhaustion requirement, as it appears
Knox did not formally challenge the calculation of his release date within the BOP’s administrative
remedy process. Because Knox has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, his petition for
a writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed without prejudice. A certificate of appealability is denied.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30,. 2015
Detroit, Michigan

s/ Bernard A. Friedman________
BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3