Garraway v. United States Bureau of Prisons ( 2003 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUL 18 2003
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
MITCHELL THEOPHILUS
GARRAWAY,
Petitioner-Appellant, No. 03-1003
v. (D. Colorado)
UNITED STATES BUREAU OF (D.C. No. 02-Z-2201)
PRISONS,
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL , HENRY , and HARTZ , Circuit Judges.
Mitchell Theophilus Garraway, a federal prisoner serving his sentence in an
institution in Florence, Colorado, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 action challenging the
United States Bureau of Prisons (BOP’s) allegedly illegal disclosure of
confidential information. He alleged that the disclosure of this information
*
The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument
pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and
judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, and law of the case. The court generally disfavors the citation
of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
caused the United States Parole Commission to deny him parole. He seeks
immediate release from custody.
The district court dismissed Mr. Garraway’s action without prejudice. We
conclude that this disposition was proper. Because Mr. Garraway is challenging
the decision of the Parole Commission, he must name that agency as a party and
must exhaust his administrative remedies. See, e.g. , Brown v. Smith , 828 F.2d
1493, 1495 (10th Cir. 1987) (citing regulations that allowed the plaintiff to
contest the Parole Commission’s decisions and concluding that “[t]his
administrative remedy must be utilized before a suit can be brought pursuant to §
2241[]”); Fuller v. Rich , 11 F.3d 61, 62 (5th Cir. 1994) (stating that “[a] prisoner
challenging a Parole Commission decision is required to exhaust administrative
remedies before seeking habeas relief in federal court”).
Accordingly, for substantially the same reasons as the district court, we
AFFIRM the dismissal of Mr. Garraway’s § 2241 petition without prejudice.
Entered for the Court,
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
-2-