(HC) Knight v. Copenhaver, No. 1:2014cv00951 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1 ) be DISMISSED Without Prejudice signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 7/1/2014. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 WADE KNIGHT, Case No. 1:14-cv-00951-AWI-SKO-HC 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE (DOC. 1) AND DIRECT THE CLERK TO CLOSE THE CASE 13 Petitioner, v. 14 15 PAUL COPENHAVER, Respondent. 16 OBJECTIONS DEADLINE: THIRTY (30) DAYS 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 through 304. Pending before the Court is the petition, which was filed on June 19, 2014. I. Screening the Petition The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (Habeas Rules) are appropriately applied to proceedings undertaken pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2241. 1 Habeas Rule 1 1(b). Habeas Rule 4 requires the Court to make a preliminary review 2 of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. 3 4 5 6 The Court must summarily dismiss a 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....@ Habeas Rule 4; 7 O=Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990); see also 8 Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). Habeas 9 Rule 2(c) requires that a petition 1) specify all grounds of relief 10 11 12 13 available to the Petitioner; 2) state the facts supporting each ground; and 3) state the relief requested. Notice pleading is not sufficient; the petition must state facts that point to a real 14 possibility of constitutional error. Rule 4, Advisory Committee 15 Notes, 1976 Adoption; O=Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d at 420 (quoting 16 Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977)). 17 Allegations in a petition that are vague, conclusory, patently 18 frivolous or false, or palpably incredible are subject to summary 19 20 dismissal. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d at 491. The Court may 21 dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus either on its own 22 motion under Habeas Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent's motion to 23 24 25 26 27 dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule 8, 1976 Adoption; see, Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042-43 (9th Cir. 2001). A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without 28 leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief 2 1 can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 2 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971). 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II. Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Petitioner alleges that he is in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) at the United States Penitentiary at Atwater, California, serving a criminal sentence. He challenges a disciplinary finding dated on or about April 25, 2013, that he refused to obey an order. The only claim for relief set forth in the petition is that in the course of the disciplinary proceedings, Petitioner was denied his due process right to call witnesses as recognized in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-64 (1974). Petitioner alleges he administratively appealed from the disciplinary finding and received a decision at the BP-10 level denying his claim based on a finding that he did not request witnesses. Petitioner then submitted his claim on the BP-11 level on an unknown date with a memorandum from the chairperson of his unit disciplinary committee stating that Petitioner had indeed requested staff witnesses. (Pet., doc. 1, 1-7.) Petitioner admits he has not received a decision at the BP-11 level and that his administrative appeal is pending. (Id. at 3.) As a “prudential matter,” federal prisoners are generally required to exhaust available administrative remedies before bringing a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Huang v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Castro-Cortez v. INS, 239 F.3d 1037, 1047 (9th Cir. 2001)); Martinez v. Roberts, 804 F.2d 570, 571 (9th Cir. 1986). The exhaustion requirement applicable to petitions brought pursuant to § 2241 is judicially created and is not a statutory requirement; thus, a failure to 3 1 exhaust does not deprive a court of jurisdiction over the 2 controversy. Brown v. Rison, 895 F.2d 533, 535 (9th Cir. 1990), 3 overruled on other grounds, Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50, 54-55 4 (1995). If a petitioner has not properly exhausted his or her 5 claims, a district court in its discretion may either excuse the 6 faulty exhaustion and reach the merits, or require the petitioner to 7 exhaust his administrative remedies before proceeding in court. 8 Brown v. Rison, 895 F.2d at 535. 9 Factors weighing in favor of requiring exhaustion include 10 whether 1) agency expertise makes agency consideration necessary to 11 generate a proper record and reach a proper decision, 2) relaxation 12 of the requirement would encourage the deliberate bypass of the 13 administrative scheme, and 3) administrative review is likely to 14 allow the agency to correct its own mistakes and to preclude the 15 need for judicial review. Noriega-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 874, 16 880-81 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Montes v. Thornburgh, 919 F.2d 531, 17 537 (9th Cir. 1990)). 18 Exhaustion may be excused if the administrative remedy is 19 inadequate, ineffective, or if attempting to exhaust would be futile 20 or would cause irreparable injury. Fraley v. United States Bureau 21 of Prisons, 1 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir. 1993); United Farm Workers of 22 America v. Arizona Agr. Emp. Rel. Bd., 669 F.2d 1249, 1253 (9th Cir. 23 1982). Failure to exhaust administrative remedies may be excused 24 where an official policy of the BOP requires denial of the claim. 25 Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 2012). 26 Here, it is unclear whether Petitioner’s claim relates to the 27 legality or duration of his confinement because the sanctions 28 suffered by Petitioner are not set forth in the petition. 4 However, even assuming for the purpose of further analysis that 1 2 Petitioner’s claim is properly brought in a petition pursuant to 28 3 U.S.C. § 2241, the petition should be dismissed. Petitioner admits 4 that his claim, supported by evidence relating to the merits of his 5 claim, is pending in the later stages of the administrative appeal 1 6 process. Agency consideration of Petitioner’s appeal will generate 7 a proper record, and the agency will review the matter and reach a 8 proper decision, precluding the need for judicial review. Further, 9 the Court is mindful that relaxation of the exhaustion requirement 10 would encourage the deliberate bypass of the administrative remedy 11 scheme. There is also nothing before the Court that indicates that 12 administrative remedies would be futile or would cause any 13 irreparable injury, or that administrative exhaustion should be 14 excused. When a petitioner in a proceeding pursuant to § 2241 does not 15 16 exhaust administrative remedies, a district court ordinarily should 17 either dismiss the petition without prejudice or stay the 18 proceedings until the petitioner has exhausted remedies, unless 19 exhaustion is excused. 20 (9th Cir. 2011). Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 Here, the Court will dismiss the petition without 21 prejudice to refiling after complete exhaustion of administrative 22 remedies. 23 /// 24 25 26 27 28 1 The BOP has established an administrative remedy program which requires an inmate to proceed through a four-level review process: 1) an attempt at informal resolution with institutional staff (BP 8); 2) a formal written administrative remedy request to the Warden (BP 9); 3) an appeal to the BOP Regional Director (BP 10); and 4) an appeal to the BOP General Counsel (BP 11). 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.13542.15. An appeal to the General Counsel is the final administrative remedy. 28 C.F.R. § 542.15(a). 5 1 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that: 2 1) The petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED for 3 failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and 4 2) The Clerk be DIRECTED to close the case. 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United 6 States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the 7 provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 8 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern 9 District of California. Within thirty (30) days after being served 10 with a copy, any party may file written objections with the Court 11 and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 12 captioned AObjections to Magistrate Judge=s Findings and 13 Recommendations.@ Replies to the objections shall be served and 14 filed within fourteen (14) days (plus three (3) days if served by 15 mail) after service of the objections. The Court will then review 16 the Magistrate Judge=s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(C). 17 The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 18 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court=s 19 order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: July 1, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
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.
