Ragland v. David Paul

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION LEXINGTON JAMES RAGLAND, ) ) Petitioner, ) No. 5:23-CV-77-REW ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) WARDEN DAVID PAUL, ) ) Respondent. ) *** *** *** *** Petitioner James Ragland is incarcerated at the Federal Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucky. Proceeding without a lawyer, Ragland filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 , claiming that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) improperly calculated his release date. See DE 1. This matter is before the Court on initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 . See Alexander v. N. Bureau of Prisons, 419 F. App’x 544, 545 (6th Cir. 2011). The Court will deny Ragland’s petition without prejudice because he has not yet fully exhausted his administrative remedies, as required. See Fazzini v. Ne. Ohio Corr. Ctr., 473 F.3d 229, 231 (6th Cir. 2006) (“Federal prisoners must exhaust their administrative remedies prior to filing a habeas petition under § 2241.”). There is a multi-tiered administrative grievance process within the BOP. If a matter cannot be resolved informally via a BP-8 Form, the prisoner must file a BP-9 Administrative Remedy Request Form with the Warden, who has twenty days to respond. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.14 (a), 542.18. If the prisoner is not satisfied with the Warden’s response, he may use a BP-10 Form to appeal to the applicable Regional Office, which has thirty days to respond. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.15 , 542.18. If the prisoner is not satisfied with the Regional Office’s response, he may use a BP-11 Form to appeal to the General Counsel, who has forty days to respond. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.15 , 542.18. Here, it is plainly apparent that Ragland has not yet fully exhausted his administrative remedies. While Ragland indicates that he completed the BP-8 and BP-9 steps and then filed a BP-10 Form with the Regional Office, he admits that the Regional Office has not (as of filing) yet responded to his appeal. See DE 1 at 6-7. The record makes it clear that the Regional Office still has time to do so. The Regional Office received Ragland’s BP-10 Form on January 24, 2023, see DE 1-3 at 9, and, as a result, it had 30 days—i.e., until February 23, 2023—to respond. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.18 . The Regional Office then sent Ragland a written submission saying that it needed additional time to respond to his appeal and, thus, was extending its time to respond by 30 days— i.e., until March 25, 2023. DE 1-3 at 9. While Ragland now complains that the “Regional Office requested an extention [sic] until March 25, 2023” to respond to his BP-10 Form, see DE 1 at 7, the Code of Federal Regulations allows for such an extension. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.18 (stating that “the time for a response may be extended once by . . . 30 days at the regional level . . . [and] [s]taff shall inform the inmate of this extension in writing”). In short, the BP-10 stage is ongoing. And, in any event, Ragland has not started the BP-11 step, which would be necessary should the Regional Office deny his appeal. Where a petitioner’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies is apparent from the face of the pleading itself, sua sponte dismissal is appropriate. See Kenney v. Ormond, No. 175889 (6th Cir. May 7, 2018) (affirming this Court’s decision denying a § 2241 petition for failure to exhaust). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. The Court DENIES DE 1, Ragland’s § 2241 petition, WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and 2. The Court STRIKES this matter from its active docket. The Court will enter an appropriate judgment. This the 23rd day of March, 2023. Kees. Signed By: WO □□ Robert E. Wier 7 y/ “m= United States District Judge