Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Diaz v. Warden, FCI Edgefield

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division

July 13, 2017

Ubaldo Diaz, Petitioner,
v.
Warden, FCI Edgefield, Respondent.

          ORDER

          R. BRYAN HARWELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Petitioner Ubaldo Diaz, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Petition [ECF No. 1]. The matter is before the Court for consideration of Petitioner's objections to the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III.[1] See R & R [ECF No. 11]; Pet.'s Objs. [ECF No. 19]. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court summarily dismiss Petitioner's § 2241 petition without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return. R & R at 5.

         Standard of Review

         The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The Magistrate Judge's recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of the R & R to which specific objections are made, and it may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

         The Court must engage in a de novo review of every portion of the Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been filed. Id. However, the Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the [C]ourt to a specific error in the [M]agistrate [Judge]'s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections to the R & R, the Court reviews only for clear error, Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005), and the Court need not give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).

         Discussion

         In his § 2241 petition, [2] Petitioner challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding that occurred before a disciplinary hearing officer (“DHO”) at FCI-Edgefield and resulted in the loss of forty-one days of good conduct time.[3] Pet. at 2-8. The Magistrate Judge recommends summarily dismissing Petitioner's § 2241 petition because he has failed to fully exhaust the administrative remedies available through the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). R & R at 5. Petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, arguing “he has exhausted all administrative remedies ‘as best as possible' and he was deprived of his right to appeal DHO Report and Findings.” Pet.'s Objs. at 5.

         I. Applicable Law

         Section 2241 is the proper means for a federal prisoner to challenge the BOP's sentencing calculations, including good conduct time credits. See Yi v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 412 F.3d 526 (4th Cir. 2005); United States v. Little, 392 F.3d 671, 679 (4th Cir. 2004). Section 2241 petitions are subject to judicial screening, and a district court must summarily dismiss the petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4 of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.[4] “If the petition is not dismissed, the judge must order the respondent to file an answer, motion, or other response within a fixed time, or to take other action the judge may order.” Id. Although § 2241 does not contain a statutory exhaustion requirement, courts consistently require prisoners to exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking habeas review under § 2241. See, e.g., Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 490-91 (1973) (requiring exhaustion in a § 2241 matter); Timms v. Johns, 627 F.3d 525, 530-33 (4th Cir. 2010) (same).

         The BOP administers an inmate discipline program. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 541.1-541.8. “The discipline process starts when staff witness or reasonably believe that [an inmate has] committed a prohibited act. A staff member will issue [the inmate] an incident report describing the incident and the prohibited act(s) [the inmate is] charged with committing.” Id. § 541.5(a). If (after investigation) the incident report is referred to a DHO for further review, the DHO will conduct a hearing and issue a written report. Id. §§ 541.7-541.8.

         An inmate may appeal the DHO's decision through the BOP's Administrative Remedy Program. Id. § 541.8(I); see generally 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.10-542.19. The DHO appeal process consists of two steps. First, the inmate must submit a DHO appeal within twenty calendar days “to the Regional Director for the region where the inmate is currently located.” 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(d)(2). Second, if the inmate “is not satisfied with the Regional Director's response, ” he may submit an appeal to the General Counsel (located at the Central Office) “within 30 calendar days of the date the Regional Director signed the response.” Id. § 542.15(a). “Appeal to the General Counsel is the final administrative appeal.” Id.

         The BOP may extend the time limits for an appeal (to either the Regional Director or General Counsel) “[w]hen the inmate demonstrates a valid reason for delay.” Id. “In general, valid reason for delay means a situation which prevented the inmate from submitting the request within the established time frame.” Id. § 542.14(b).

         The BOP may reject an inmate's appeal at any level for failure to comply with the administrative remedy requirements. Id. § 542.17(a). When an appeal is rejected, the Administrative Remedy Coordinator will provide the inmate a written notice explaining the reason for rejection. Id. § 542.17(b). “If the defect on which the rejection is based is correctable, the notice shall inform the inmate of a reasonable time extension within which to correct the defect and resubmit the . . . Appeal.” Id. If the inmate is not given an opportunity to correct the defect and resubmit the appeal, the inmate may appeal the rejection to the next appeal level, and “[t]he Coordinator at that level may affirm the rejection, may direct ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.