MICHAEL REYNOLDS V. LINDA MCGREW, No. 14-55090 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 25 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL CURTIS REYNOLDS, Nos. 14-55090 14-55292 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. Nos. 2:13-cv-03591-MWF 2:13-cv-07798-MWF v. LINDA MCGREW; et al., MEMORANDUM* Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 17, 2015** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, federal prisoner Michael Curtis Reynolds appeals pro se from the district court’s judgments dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). habeas corpus petitions. We review the dismissal of a section 2241 petition de novo, see Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm. In Appeal No. 14-55090, Reynolds challenges the loss of good time credits following a disciplinary hearing. In Appeal No. 14-55292, Reynolds contends that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) improperly classified him as a high-security-risk inmate and improperly housed him in a high-security facility. The district court did not err by dismissing either of Reynolds’s petitions for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies available to him. See Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2012). Although Reynolds attempted to appeal the BOP’s decisions, the record shows that the BOP rejected his appeals because they did not meet BOP requirements. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.17 (2012). We are also unpersuaded by Reynolds’s argument that the documents submitted to the district court by respondents were fraudulent or false. We reject as meritless Reynolds’s challenges to the district court’s handling of his petitions. 2 14-55090 & 14-55292 Reynolds’s request for an emergency temporary restraining order is denied. AFFIRMED. 3 14-55090 & 14-55292
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
