United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
REBECCA RUTHERFORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
James Lewis, a federal prisoner currently incarcerated at the
Federal Medical Center in Fort Worth, Texas, filed a pro
se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. The District Court referred the resulting civil
action to the United States magistrate judge, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference. For
the following reasons, the Court should dismiss the petition
without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative
challenges the Bureau of Prisons's (“BOP”)
calculation of his time credits. He has both state and
federal convictions and was transferred from state custody to
federal custody when he pleaded guilty to his federal charge.
He was then transferred back to state custody. After he was
paroled from his state convictions, he began serving his
original petition, he claimed BOP failed to grant him time
credits of 397 days from January 23, 2013 to February 24,
2014. The government responded that it reviewed
Petitioner's claims and has now granted him time credit
of 272 days from June 15, 2013 to March 13, 2014. Petitioner
filed a reply stating that his calculations in his original
petition were incorrect, and he has now determined that in
addition to the 272 days the government has credited him, he
is entitled to an additional 264 days of credit. The
government argues his petition should be dismissed for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that the
petition is without merit.
petitioners seeking relief under § 2241 must exhaust
their administrative remedies prior to presenting their
claims in federal court. Fuller v. Rich, 11 F.3d 61,
62 (5th Cir. 1994). The BOP has established an Administrative
Remedy Program whereby inmates can “seek formal review
of an issue which relates to any aspect of his/her own
confinement.” 28 C.F.R. § 542.10(a). A prisoner
must present his claim to the prison warden and appeal any
adverse decision to the BOP Regional Director and General
Counsel. Id. § 542.15(a).
to the exhaustion doctrine are appropriate where “the
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.” Montano v. State,
867 F.3d 540, 543 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting Fuller v.
Rich, 11 F.3d at 62). These exceptions, however, apply
only in extraordinary circumstances. Broderick v.
Chapman, 364 Fed.Appx. 111, 112 (5th Cir. 2010).
Petitioner bears the burden of establishing his entitlement
to one or more of these exceptions. Id.
conceding that he has not exhausted his administrative
remedies, Petitioner argues exhaustion would be futile
because the BOP has already admitted that its calculations
were incorrect. Petitioner, however, has failed to show that
he ever presented the new claims that he raises in his reply
to the BOP. If the BOP has erroneously calculated
Petitioner's time credits, it has authority to correct
that error. See Cartwright v. Outlaw, 293 Fed.Appx.
324, *1 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (citing Smith v.
Thompson, 937 F.2d 217, 219 (5th Cir. 1991)) (“If
an agency has offered to reexamine its decision it should be
permitted to do so.”). The Court finds that Petitioner
has not established any exception to the exhaustion
requirement and that the petition should be dismissed.
foregoing reasons, Petitioner's habeas corpus petition
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 should be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO
of this report and recommendation shall be served on all
parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects
to any part of this report and recommendation must file
specific written objections within 14 days after being served
with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). To be specific, an objection must
identify the specific finding or recommendation to which
objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and
specify the place in the magistrate judge's report and
recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An
objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to
the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific.
Failure to file specific written objections will bar the
aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal