Sodano v. Spaulding

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM re Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 (Order to follow as separate docket entry) Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 4/27/21. (ma)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAMES SODANO,
Petitioner,

No. 1:20-CV-02103

v.

(Judge Rambo)

STEPHEN SPAULDING,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently before the Court is Petitioner James Sodano’s petition for writ of
habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner seeks
“immediate transfer to Home Confinement.” Respondent submitted an answer,
arguing, inter alia, that Petitioner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies
prior to filing this petition. (Doc. 11 at 3.) Petitioner has not filed a reply, and the
time for doing so has now expired. For the reasons that follow, the petition will be
dismissed.
I.

BACKGROUND
Petitioner is presently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at

Williamsburg in Salters, South Carolina, and has a projected release date of August
11, 2044, assuming Petitioner receives all good conduct time he is eligible to earn.
(Doc. 11 at 2.) At the time he filed the petition, Petitioner was incarcerated at the
United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg, in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1 at 1.)

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 on November 12, 2020. (Doc. 1.) In it, he argues that he is elderly and seeks
the transfer to home confinement due to the Covid-19 pandemic. (Id. at 7.)
In the answer, Respondent explains that on October 30, 2020, Petitioner
submitted Administrative Remedy No. 1054514-F1 to the Warden of USP
Lewisburg requesting transfer to home confinement. (Doc. 11 at 6.) On November
6, 2020, the Warden responded to Petitioner, denying his request because he does
not meet the criteria for transfer to home confinement under the CARES Act. (Id.)
When denying the request for administrative remedy, the Warden noted that if
Petitioner was dissatisfied with the response, he could appeal to the Regional
Director. (See id.) Petitioner did not appeal the Warden’s decision to the Regional
Director. (Id.)
Petitioner has not filed a reply nor has he otherwise addressed the exhaustion
of his claim.
II.

DISCUSSION
Petitioner is seeking transfer to home confinement due to the Covid-19

pandemic. The petition must be dismissed, however, because Petitioner has failed
to exhaust his administrative remedies.
A prisoner must exhaust all stages of the administrative remedy system prior
to the filing of a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Moscato v. Fed. Bureau
2

of Prisons, 98 F.3d 757, 760 (3d Cir. 1996); Bradshaw v. Carlson, 682 F.2d 1050,
1052 (3d Cir. 1981) (“A federal prisoner ordinarily may not seek habeas corpus relief
until he has exhausted all administrative remedies.”); Arias v. U.S. Parole Comm’n,
648 F.2d 196 (3d Cir. 1981). Requiring inmates to exhaust their remedies serves a
number of purposes, such as “(1) allowing the appropriate agency to develop a
factual record and apply its expertise facilitates judicial review; (2) permitting
agencies to grant the relief requested conserves judicial resources; and (3) providing
agencies the opportunity to correct their own errors fosters administrative
autonomy.” Moscato, 98 F.3d at 761-62. Exhaustion of administrative remedies
requires compliance with an agency’s deadlines, other critical procedural rules, and
all steps of the available administrative process. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 9092 (2006); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007) (proper exhaustion defined by
applicable prison requirements).
In order to exhaust administrative remedies, a federal prisoner must first
attempt to informally resolve the dispute with institution staff. See 28 C.F.R. §
542.13. Then, if informal resolution efforts fail, the prisoner may raise his complaint
to the warden of the institution in which he is confined. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.14. If
the warden denies the administrative remedy request, the prisoner may next file an
appeal with the regional director within twenty days from the date of the warden’s
response. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.15. Finally, if the regional director denies the appeal,
3

the prisoner may then appeal that decision to the general counsel of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons within thirty days from the date of the regional director’s response.
See 28 C.F.R. § 542.15.

The requirement that prisoners first exhaust their

administrative remedies applies even for requests for home confinement due to the
Covid-19 pandemic. See, e.g., Jackson v. White, 3:20-cv-919, 2020 WL 3036075,
at *7 (M.D. Pa. June 5, 2020); Cordaro v. Finley, No. 3:10-CR-75, 2020 WL
2084960, at *5 (M.D. Pa. April 30, 2020).
Here, Petitioner admits in the petition that he has failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies, which Respondent has confirmed by consulting the Bureau
of Prisons Administrative Remedy Generalized Retrieval system. (See Doc. 11 at
6.) He makes no argument regarding his failure to exhaust his administrative
remedies. As such, the petition must be dismissed.1 See Arias, 648 F.2d at 199
(noting that if a prisoner does not exhaust available administrative remedies, the
petition should be dismissed).

1

The Court notes that the administrative remedy process is still available to
Petitioner, and thus Petitioner’s claim is not procedurally defaulted. In the
alternative, if the claim were procedurally defaulted, Petitioner has failed to present
any cause for his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Moscato, 98
F.3d at 761 (“[I]f a prisoner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies due
to a procedural default and the default renders unavailable the administrative
process, review of his habeas claim is barred unless he can demonstrate cause and
prejudice.”).
4

III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the petition will be dismissed. An appropriate

Order follows.

S/Sylvia H. Rambo
United States District Judge
Dated: April 27, 2021

5