Edwards v. United States of America

Filing 9

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Samora Ahmed Edwards. (In light of the foregoing discussion, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the District Judge DISMISS without prejudice Petitioner Samora Ahmed Edwards's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Dkt. No. 1 ) for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.). Signed by Judge Andrew W. Austin. (jk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
SAMORA AHMED EDWARDS,
Petitioner,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

V.
MIKE PEARCE, WARDEN,
FCI BASTROP,
Respondent.

A-12-CV-976-SS-AWA

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TO:

THE HONORABLE SAM SPARKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Petitioner Samora Ahmed Edwards’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Dkt. No. 1) and Respondent Mike Pearce’s Response to Petition (Dkt.
No. 8). Petitioner did not file a reply in this case. The Magistrate Judge submits this Report and
Recommendation to the United States District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Rule 1 of
Appendix C of the Local Court Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas, Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner Samora Ahmed Edwards (“Edwards”), Reg. No. 70085-079, is a federal prisoner
incarcerated in the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) at FCI-Bastrop pursuant to a judgment and sentence
in Criminal Case No. 4:95-CR-00235 in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Texas. Edwards is serving time after he pleaded guilty to bank robbery and use of a semiautomatic weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924 and 2113. Edwards was sentenced on June 3,
1996, to 255 months of imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release. Edwards’s

convictions and sentence were affirmed on appeal. United States v. Edwards, 109 F.3d 767 (5th Cir.
1997).
In the instant petition, Edwards brings his claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Broadly
construed, he alleges that the BOP has exceeded its authority and modified Edwards’s sentence by
forcing him to participate in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (“IFRP”). Dkt. No. 1.
Edwards contends that he reluctantly signed the contract, which requires him to make contributions
of $25 per quarter. Id. Edwards argues that the BOP recently refused to provide him with a copy
of the IFRP contract unless he signed a new contract, which would require him to contribute $94 per
month.1 Id. Edwards submits that only this Court has the authority to modify Edwards’s sentence.
Id. Respondent contends that Edwards’s instant petition should be dismissed for failure to exhaust
his administrative remedies. Dkt. No. 8.
II. ANALYSIS
As an initial matter, federal prisoners must exhaust all available administrative remedies
before seeking habeas relief in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Fuller v. Rich, 11 F.3d 61, 62
(5th Cir. 1994). Exceptions to the exhaustion requirement arise when “available administrative
remedies either are unavailable or wholly inappropriate to the relief sought, or where the attempt to
exhaust such remedies would itself be a patently futile course of action.” Id. These exceptions
“apply only in extraordinary circumstances,” and the petitioner bears the burden of establishing that
administrative review would be futile in his case. Id.

1

The Court notes that Edwards’s allegations that he was required to pay $94 per month as
part of his new IFRP contract is inconsistent with the evidence provided. In Respondent’s filing,
Exhibit C shows that Edwards signed an Inmate Financial Plan in December, 2012, which set his
payments at an amount of $25 per month. Dkt. No. 8, Exh. C, Inmate Financial Plan.
2

The BOP, which administers the prison in which Edwards is incarcerated, has a four-step
process for resolving complaints by prisoners. Initially, a prisoner must attempt to informally resolve
the complaint with staff by filing a BP-8 form. 28 C.F.R. § 542.13(a). If informal attempts are
unsuccessful, the prisoner must submit a written complaint to the Warden using a BP-9 form. 28
C.F.R. § 542.14(a). If the prisoner is not satisfied with the Warden's response, he may appeal to the
Regional Director using a BP-10 form. 28 C.F.R. § 542.15. If still unsatisfied, the prisoner may
appeal to the Office of General Counsel using form BP-11. 28 C.F.R. § 542.15.
In this case, Edwards has not presented any evidence or documentation to suggest that he has
exhausted his administrative remedies with the BOP. Indeed, there is nothing in the record showing
that the BOP even considered or rejected Edwards’s claims. See also Dkt. No. 8, Exh. B,
Declaration of Joseph Tang, ¶ 3. Furthermore, Edwards makes no claims suggesting that attempting
to exhaust his administrative remedies with the BOP would be futile. As such, the undersigned will
recommend that the District Judge dismiss Edwards’s instant petition.
III. RECOMMENDATION
In light of the foregoing discussion, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the District
Judge DISMISS without prejudice Petitioner Samora Ahmed Edwards’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Dkt. No. 1) for failure to exhaust his administrative
remedies.
IV. WARNINGS
The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party filing
objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are
being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See
Battle v. United States Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
3

A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations
contained in this Report within fourteen (14) days after the party is served with a copy of the Report
shall bar that party from de novo review by the District Court of the proposed findings and
recommendations in the Report and, except upon grounds of plain error, shall bar the party from
appellate review of unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the
District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53 (1985);
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
To the extent that a party has not been served by the Clerk with this Report &
Recommendation electronically pursuant to the CM/ECF procedures of this District, the Clerk is
directed to mail such party a copy of this Report and Recommendation by certified mail, return
receipt requested.
SIGNED this 1st day of May, 2013.

_____________________________________
ANDREW W. AUSTIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4