But unlike Risher, Petitioner failed to pursue an administrate remedy at the Central Office level after he did not receive a timely regional response. See Mora v. Rios, No. 7:11-0068-KKC, 2012 WL 381720, at *3 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 6, 2012) (explaining that Petitioner should have appealed at the Regional level after the Warden failed to respond to Petitioner's institutional remedy request within the time allowed and holding that Petitioner failed to properly exhaust). Had Petitioner timely appealed to the Central Office, he would have exhausted his administrative remedies for his § 2241 Petition, whether or not the BOP rejected the filing.

Had he been transferred directly to another prison or jail, the Court's analysis would not change. A "prisoner's subsequent transfer to another prison facility does not relieve him of his obligation to administratively exhaust his claims at the facility where the claims arose." Mora v. Rios, No. 7:11-68-KKC, 2012 WL 381720, at *3 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 6, 2012). --------

Contrary to plaintiff's response, a "prisoner's subsequent transfer to another prison facility does not relieve him of his obligation to administratively exhaust his claims at the facility where the claims arose." Mora v. Rios, 2012 WL 381720 (E.D. Ky. 2012) (citing Medina-Claudio v. Rodriguez-Mateo, 292 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir. 2002) (finding that prisoner's subsequent transfer to another facility did not excuse him from exhausting his administrative remedies); Wiley v. Boone County Sheriff's Office, 2009 WL 2390164, at *3 (E.D. Ky. 2009) (same); Prickett v. Lawson, 2008 WL 5046063, at *3 (S.D. Ga. 2008) (same); Sims v. Blot, 2003 WL 21738766, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (same); Thomas v. Henry, 2002 WL 922388, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (finding that prisoner's transfer from a city jail to a state prison did not relieve him from pursuing grievance procedures). Plaintiff has offered no other explanation or identified any other impediment to his completion of the grievance process.

This Court adheres to the general rule that a prisoner's subsequent transfer to another prison facility does not relieve him of his obligation to administratively exhaust his claims at the facility where the claims arose." Bruin v. Meko, No. 14-CV-57-HRW, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29759, at *14 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 10, 2015) (citing Mora v. Rios, No. 7:11-CV-68-KKC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14025, at *9 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 6, 2012); Wiley v. Boone Cnty. Sheriff's Office, No. 2:09-CV-98-WOB, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69532, at *10-11 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 4, 2009)). Plaintiff cites no reason that his transfer made the grievance procedures at DCDC unavailable to him.

This Court adheres to the general rule that a prisoner's subsequent transfer to another prison facility does not relieve him of his obligation to administratively exhaust his claims at the facility where the claims arose. Mora v. Rios, No. 7:11-CV-68-KKC, 2012 WL 381720, at *3 (E. D. Ky. Feb. 6, 2012) (citations omitted); Wiley v. Boone County Sheriff's Office, No. 2:09-CV-98-WOB, 2009 WL 2390164, at *3 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 4, 2009) At the summary judgment stage, Bruin must do more than rely on conclusory statements.