Opinion
24-CV-1034 (PJS/DTS)
07-31-2024
ZANTRA WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. B. EISCHEN, FPC Duluth, Respondent.
Zantra Williams, pro se.
Zantra Williams, pro se.
ORDER
PATRICK J. SCHILTZ, CHIEF JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on petitioner Zantra Williams's objection to the May 21, 2024 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz. Judge Schultz recommends denying Williams's petition for a writ of habeas corpus for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. The Court has conducted a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Based on that review, the Court overrules Williams's objection and adopts Judge Schultz's R&R.
Only one matter merits comment. Williams argues both in his petition and in his objection to the R&R that pursuing his administrative remedies with the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) would be futile, because his case manager at the BOP has designated two other comparable inmates as eligible to earn time credits under the First Step Act (“FSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d), but has not done so for Williams. However, that does not suggest a futile administrative process; to the contrary, it suggests that the BOP has undertaken an individualized decision-making process that takes into consideration the specific facts and circumstances of each inmate's offense of conviction. Pursuit of an administrative appeal would allow the BOP to explain its decision (to the benefit of the court reviewing any consequent habeas petition) or to correct its error if, as Williams suggests, it made a mistake in determining his eligibility for FSA credits.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court OVERRULES petitioner's objection [ECF No. 7] and ADOPTS the R&R [ECF No. 6]. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Petitioner Zantra Williams's petition for a writ of habeas corpus [ECF No. 1] is DENIED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and
2. Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 4] is DENIED AS MOOT.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.