KLUG v. OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, No. 1:2015cv01811 - Document 24 (D.D.C. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION accompanying final order issued separately this day. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 9/16/16.(ah)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
KLUG v. OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL Doc. 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ________________________________ ) ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL ) FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, ) ) Respondent. ) __________________________________ ) JOSEPH EMIL KLUG, Civil Action No. 15-1811 (EGS) MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner Joseph Emil Klug is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se. He filed this mandamus action to compel the Bureau of Prisons’ Office of General Counsel to act on his two administrative appeals, Numbers 807592 and 809217, submitted on March 23, 2015, and April 19, 2015, respectively. Petitioner seeks to have BOP “acknowledge receipt of and reply to” his appeals, allow him to resubmit the appeals if not received, or declare his administrative remedies exhausted so that he can satisfy the prerequisite for filing suit in federal court. Compl. at 1-2. Pending is BOP’s Motion to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction [Dkt. 13]. According to BOP’s declarant, the General Counsel received petitioner’s appeals on March 30, 2015, and April 27, 2015. By regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 542.18, an inmate’s administrative remedies are effectively exhausted if the General Counsel, as the final arbiter of such matters, fails to provide a response within 60 days of its receipt of an appeal (inclusive of a one-time 20 day extension). BOP acknowledges that it has not responded to petitioner’s appeals, thereby rendering petitioner’s administrative remedies exhausted. See Decl. 1 Dockets.Justia.com of Richard J. Hansford [Dkt. 13-1]. Consequently, this case will be dismissed as moot. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. SIGNED: EMMET G. SULLIVAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATE: September 16, 2016 2
]]>
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.
