Summary
affirming the dismissal without prejudice of a Section 2241 petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies
Summary of this case from United States v. ChristopherOpinion
No. 14-57013
04-29-2016
BALENTIN MARTINEZ QUINONEZ, Petitioner - Appellant, v. LINDA T. McGREW, Respondent - Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00515-VBF MEMORANDUM Appeal rrom the United States District Court for the Central District of California
Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Federal prisoner Balentin Martinez Quinonez appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 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.
Because Quinonez is challenging the execution of his sentence, federal subject matter jurisdiction exists under section 2241. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2012) (considering a challenge to the Bureau of Prisons' ("BOP") administration of the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program in a section 2241 habeas petition). --------
In his petition, Quinonez challenged the BOP's authority to establish the time and manner in which he is required to pay his court-imposed fine. The district court did not err by dismissing Quinonez's petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See Ward, 678 F.3d at 1045. The record shows that Quinonez did not complete any level of the BOP's Administrative Remedy Program and there is no indication that his pursuit of those remedies would be futile. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.10 et seq.
We decline to consider Quinonez's challenge to the amount of the fine, and his argument that the district court procedurally erred when imposing the fine, because those claims were not raised below. See Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 2001).
AFFIRMED.