Welch v. Williams ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAND WELCH, Case No.: 21cv504-CAB-BLM 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITION 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST 14 WARDEN LOUIS WILLIAMS, ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 15 Respondents. 16 17 On March 22, 2021, Petitioner Brand Welch filed a petition for writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241, challenging the calculation of good time credits. 19 [Doc. No. 1.] On April 16, 2021, the government filed a response in opposition to the 20 petition. [Doc. No. 4.] To date, no reply has been filed. 21 Petitioner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Federal prisoners must 22 exhaust the administrative remedies offered by the BOP before seeking § 2241 habeas 23 relief. Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2021); Garza v. Davis, 596 F.3d 24 1198, 1203-04 (10th Cir. 2010)(“BOP regulations require a prisoner to attempt informal 25 resolution of a complaint and, if that fails, to submit a formal request for an 26 administrative remedy to the institution. If the inmate does not obtain a satisfactory 27 resolution from the institution itself, he then may file a regional appeal followed by a 28 national appeal.”) 1 The BOP's Inmate Grievance System requires a federal prisoner to first seek 2 ||informal resolution of any issue with staff. 28 C.F.R. § 542.13. If a matter cannot be 3 || resolved informally, the prisoner is required to file an Administrative Remedy Request 4 || Form (BP-9 Form) with the warden, who has 20 days to respond. See 28 C.F.R. 5 || $§542.14(a) and 542.18. If the prisoner is not satisfied with the Warden's response, he 6 then use a BP-10 Form to appeal to the applicable regional director, who has 30 days 7 respond. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.15 and 542.18. If the prisoner is not satisfied with the 8 ||Regional Director's response, he may use a BP-11 Form to appeal to the General 9 Counsel, who has 40 days to respond. See 28 C.F.R. $§ 542.15 and 542.18. 10 Here, Petitioner only took the first of three steps in the administrative process. 11 || While Petitioner filed several BP-9 forms seeking compassionate release and home 12 ||confinement [Doc. No. | at 15-19; Doc. No. 4-4], it was not until October 2020 that he 13 || asked the warden to calculate and apply any “earned time credit” he may have earned 14 || under the FSA. [Doc. No. 1 at 20.] When the warden declined to calculate any credits and 15 ||instead instructed him to discuss the matter with the “reentry affairs coordinator’ at his 16 || facility [/d. at 23], Petitioner never filed an appeal of that decision.' Therefore, the 17 || petition is DENIED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.” 18 Dated: May 10, 2021 (GR 19 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 SSS 25 ' Petitioner claims that the reentry affairs coordinator at his facility has not responded to his request, but 26 || that does not excuse his failure to file further administrative appeals. > Petitioner’s request for an “immediate” RRC referral under the Second Chance Act is also DENIED 27 || without prejudice for failure to exhaust. Berry v. Sanders, No. CV 08-1319-VBF(MAN), 2009 WL 28 789890, at *1(C.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2009)(denying $2241 petition regarding placement in an RRC for failure to exhaust administrative remedies).