Watson v. St. Louis City Justice Center
OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED AND DISMISSED for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability will be granted.An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 4/13/17. (CLA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
BRUCE L. WATSON,
ST. LOUIS CITY JUSTICE CENTER,
No. 4:17CV961 NCC
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s application for writ of habeas pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner seeks an order from the Court directing the Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”) to place him in a Federal Penitentiary to serve his federal sentence.
Petitioner pled guilty to one count of bank robbery. On April 27, 2010, the Court
sentenced him to a prison term of sixty-three (63) months and two years of supervised release.
Petitioner’s sentence was to run concurrent to the then pending state charge in Case No. 922-CR03535-01. Petitioner is currently housed at the St. Louis City Justice Center.
Petitioner contends that his federal sentence is being carried out at a state jail. He
believes this is “cruel and unusual punishment” because it is his belief that federal sentences
should be carried out in federal institutions. Specifically, petitioner appears to have difficulty
with the “22-hour” lock-down procedure instituted at the St. Louis City Justice Center.
Administrative procedures exist within the BOP for resolution of claims such as this one.
See Rogers v. United States, 180 F.3d 349, 358 (1st Cir.1999) (“Once administrative remedies
are exhausted, prisoners may then seek judicial review of any jail-time credit determination, by
filing a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.”) (citing United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329,
335 (1992); 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.10-542.16). “A prisoner may bring a habeas action challenging
the BOP's execution of his sentence only if he first presents his claim to the BOP.” Mathena v.
United States, 577 F.3d 943, 946 (8th Cir. 2009).
Petitioner does not allege that he exhausted his available administrative remedies before
bringing this action. As a result, petitioner is not entitled to judicial relief.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED
AND DISMISSED for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability will be granted.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.
Dated this 13th day of April, 2017
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?