Sanchez v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Full title: MARTIN SANCHEZ, 31293-177, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS AND…

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

Date published: Jan 27, 2005

No. 3:05-CV-82-P (N.D. Tex. Jan. 27, 2005)

Opinion

No. 3:05-CV-82-P.

January 27, 2005

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PAUL STICKNEY, Magistrate Judge

This action was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b), as implemented by an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge follow:

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I. Factual background

Petitioner is an inmate in the federal prison system. On December 6, 2004, he was sentenced to 77 months confinement. Petitioner states that on December 14, 2004, he learned that the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") had classified him as a medium security level prisoner. He argues the BOP has erroneously classified him as a medium security risk, and that he should be classified at a lower level. He seeks to enjoin the BOP from transferring him to a medium security facility in Beaumont, Texas. He also seeks to stay these proceedings while he exhausts his administrative remedies. The Court finds the petition should be dismissed. II. Discussion

1. Injunctive relief

To be entitled to injunctive relief, Petitioner must show: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat that failure to grant the order will result in irreparable injury; (3) the threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunction will cause defendants; and (4) the injunction will not have an adverse affect on the public interest. Women's Med. Ctr. v. Bell, 248 F.3d 411, 418-20(5th Cir. 2001) (citing Hoover. Morales, 164 F.3d 221, 224 (5^th Cir. 1998)). Petitioner must prove all four elements and failure to prove any one of them will result in denial of the motion. Enterprise Intern., Inc. v. Corporacion Estatal Petrolera Ecuatoriana, 762 F.2d 464, 472 (5^th Cir. 1985) (citing Applebarrel Productions, Inc. v. Beard, 730 F.2d 384, 386 (5^th Cir. 1984)). Petitioner has failed to show that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims.

It is well settled that "[a] necessary predicate for the granting of federal habeas relief [to a petitioner] is a determination by the federal court that [his or her] custody violates the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States." Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), the BOP may direct confinement of a prisoner in any available facility and may transfer a prisoner from one facility to another at any time. Federal prisoners generally have no constitutional right to placement in a particular penal institution. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983); Brown-Bey v. United States, 720 F.2d 467, 470 (7^th Cir. 1983). Petitioner does not have a constitutional right to designation at any particular institution. Moore v. United States Att'y Gen., 473 F.2d 1375 (5^th Cir. 1973). He has therefore failed to show he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims.

2. Exhaustion

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is typically used to challenge the manner in which a sentence is executed. See Warren v. Miles, 230 F.3d 688, 694 (5^th Cir. 2000). Generally, petitioners seeking relief under § 2241 must exhaust their administrative remedies prior to presenting their claims in federal court. Fuller v. Rich, 11 F.3d 61, 62 (5^th Cir. 1994). The Bureau of Prisons has established an Administrative Remedy Program whereby inmates can "seek formal review of an issue which relates to any aspect of their confinement." 28 C.F.R. § 542.10. A prisoner must present his claim to the prison warden and appeal any adverse decision to the BOP Regional Director and General Counsel. Id. § 542.15(a).

Exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine are appropriate where "the available administrative remedies either are unavailable or wholly inappropriate to the relief sought, or where the attempt to exhaust such remedies would itself be a patently futile course of action." Fuller, 11 F.3d at 62 (citation omitted). These exceptions, however, apply only in extraordinary circumstances. Id. The petitioner bears the burden of establishing his entitlement to one or more of these exceptions. Id.

While conceding that he has not exhausted his administrative remedies, Petitioner argues the Court should exercise its discretion to consider his claims on the merits. The Court, however, finds that Petitioner has not established any exception to the exhaustion requirement and that the petition should be dismissed.

Petitioner has not shown that administrative remedies are unavailable. To the contrary, BOP regulations establish procedures to resolve his complaint. Nor has Petitioner shown that the BOP procedures are wholly inappropriate to the relief sought. The Attorney General has vested the BOP with authority to determine issues related to the manner in which sentences are to be carried out. See 28 C.F.R. § 0.96(g). If the BOP has erroneously determined Petitioner's classification, it has authority to correct that error and should be permitted to do so. See Smith v. Thompson, 937 F.2d 217, 219 (5^th Cir. 1991) (agency should be given opportunity to correct its own error before aggrieved party seeks judicial intervention). Finally, Petitioner has not shown that exhaustion would be futile.

The Court finds the petition should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends that Petitioner's habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.