Rodriguez-Morales v. Jaimison

Filing 15

OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Court dismisses the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close all pending motions and to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 9/24/2024) (tg) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JUAN RODRIGUEZ-MORALES,
-v-

Petitioner,

J.L. JAMISON, Warden of the Federal Bureau of Prisons
Correctional Facility of Otisville, New York,

23 Civ. 7956 (PAE)
OPINION & ORDER

Respondent.
PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:
Petitioner Juan Rodriguez-Morales ("petitioner"), an inmate at Otisville Federal
Correctional Institution ("FCI Otisville"), filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner seeks an award of Earned Time Credits ("ETCs") under the
First Step Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4). Because petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies as required under§ 2241, see Beharry v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 51, 62 (2d Cir. 2003)
(Sotomayor, J.), the petition is dismissed.

I.

Background
On December 21, 2018, Congress enacted the First Step Act ("FSA"), which permits

federal inmates to participate in recidivism reduction programs to earn time credits qualifying
them for early release from custody. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3632(d)(4)(C), 3624(g)(l)(A). The
credits may be applied either toward earlier placement in pre-release custody or toward a term of
supervised release. Id. The FSA specifies various criteria that renders an inmate ineligible to
receive or apply for ETCs. Relevant here, inmates convicted of illegal reentry under the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)) are ineligible to receive such credits.
18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lix).

On March 21, 2023, petitioner was sentenced in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona to a 37-month prison term for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a). Dkt. 11 at ,r 5 ("Walker Decl."). 1 On September 7, 2023, petitioner filed the instant
petition, which seeks ETCs under the FSA based on his participation in a residential substance
abuse treatment program. Dkt. 1 at 4 ("Pet. 's Br."). He claims that, under the "Equal Act"
(which the Court construes to refer to the equal protection command of the Fifth Amendment to
the Constitution), the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") must treat non-citizens and citizens alike by
awarding petitioner time credits "as it does ... America[n] citizens." Id. at 2. Petitioner further
argues that his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies should be excused based on futility.

Id. at 2-3. In particular, he claims that the BOP has "already informed certain Alien NonResident Citizen prisoners" that "the pertinent statutory authority is not applicable to certain
Alien Non-Resident Citizens." Id. at 3.
On February 5, 2024, the Government filed a memorandum of law in opposition. Dkt. 10
("Opp. Mem."). It argues that petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before
filing his petition. The BOP's internal grievance procedure consists of four steps: informal
resolution, filing, and two levels of appeals to the regional director and central office. 28 C.F.R.
§§ 542.13-15. An administrative appeal is not considered fully exhausted until it has been ruled
on by the BOP's general counsel's office. Id. § 542.15. The Government represents that
petitioner did not utilize this mandatory process. See Opp. Mem. at 5; see also Walker Deel. at ,r
15 ("Petitioner has never filed any requests for administrative remedy or administrative appeals
with the BOP.").

1 The

Walker Declaration was submitted by Kettisha Manson Walker, a BOP case management
coordinator at FCI Otisville.
2

In response to petitioner's futility argument,the Government cites Second Circuit
caselaw which holds that the futility exception to the administrative exhaustion requirement is
not available where the petitioner's claim amounts to an argument that the claim "would have
likely failed." Opp. Mem. at 6 (citing Beharry, 329 F.3d at 62). On the merits,the Government
notes that petitioner is ineligible for ETCs not because he is a non-citizen but because he was
convicted of a disqualifying offense, and thus his Equal Protection claim is not viable. See Opp.
Mem. at 11-12.

II.

Discussion
Inmates are required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a habeas petition

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Carmona v. US. Bureau ofPrisons, 243 F.3d 629,634 (2d Cir.
2001). The exhaustion requirement advances important interests, chief among them "protecting
the authority of administrative agencies, limiting interference in agency affairs, developing the
factual record to make judicial review more efficient, and resolving issues to render judicial
review unnecessary." Beharry, 329 F.3d at 62. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies
results in a "procedural default" that bars judicial review unless "the petitioner persuades the
Court that the failure to exhaust should be excused." Rosenthal v. Killian, 667 F. Supp. 2d 364,
366 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). The Court liberally construes pleadings submitted by pro se litigants.

Hardaway v. Hartford Pub. Works Dep 't, 879 F.3d 486,489 (2d Cir. 2018).
Petitioner does not dispute that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See
Pet. 's Br. at 2-3. Instead, he invokes the "futility exception" to the exhaustion requirement,

Beharry, 329 F.3d at 56,under which exhaustion may not be required where "administrative
appeal would be futile." Id. at 62; see also Howell v. INS., 72 F.3d 288, 293 (2d Cir. 1995)
(exhaustion is futile where no "adequate remedy" is available through the internal administrative
3

process). He argues that the BOP's view that First Step Act relief is unavailable to non-citizens
is foreordained. Pet.'s Br. At 2-3.
That argument fails for at least two reasons. First, as the Second Circuit has held, a
petitioner's forecast that an argument "would likely have failed is not tantamount to stating that
it would have been futile to raise it." Beharry, 329 F.3d at 62. And requiring administrative
exhaustion in such circumstances may help develop a fuller factual record and thereby assist in
later judicial review. See id. Second, as the Government points out, petitioner's argument rests
on a false premise. The basis for claiming that he is ineligible for ETCs is not his status as a
non-citizen, but his conviction for a disqualifying offense. Had petitioner utilized the
administrative review process, this misapprehension would likely have been exposed below, thus
either definitively resolving the matter without need for judicial review or enabling a quick
disposition upon such review.
Because petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and because exhaustion
would not have been futile, the Court dismisses the petition without reaching the merits of
petitioner's claim.
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court dismisses the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close all pending motions and to close this case.
SO ORDERED.

Pau:~~ay~~
United States District Judge
Dated: September 24, 2024
New York, New York

4