MEMORANDUM ORDER
Inmate/Petitioner David Dwayne Lynn is incarcerated at the Federal Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucky. Proceeding without a lawyer, Lynn filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He asserts multiple grounds for relief, including claiming that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) is improperly calculating his release date and has failed to place him in a halfway house. [Record No. 1] Upon initial screening conducted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243, the Court will deny the petition because Lynn has not yet fully exhausted his administrative remedies. See Fazzini v. Ne. Ohio Corr. Ctr., 473 F.3d 229, 231 (6th Cir. 2006).
Lynn also failed to sign his petition [Record No. 1 at 11] in violation of Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
There is a multi-tiered administrative grievance process within the BOP. If a matter cannot be resolved informally via a so-called BP-8 Form, the prisoner must file a BP-9 Administrative Remedy Request Form with the Warden, who has 20 days to respond. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.14(a) and 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 Director, who has 30 days to respond. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.15 and 542.18. And if the prisoner is not satisfied with the Regional Director's response, he may use a BP-11 Form to appeal to the General Counsel, who has 40 days to respond. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.15 and 542.18.
It is apparent that Lynn has not yet fully exhausted his administrative remedies. He indicates that he pursued the present matters informally via a BP-8 Form (to no avail) and then filed a BP-9 Form with the Warden who issued a rejection notice suggesting that his BP-8 Form did not match his BP-9 Form and that he was improperly pursuing more than one issue at a time. [See Record No. 1 at 9-10; No. 1-7, No. 1-8, and No. 1-9 at 1.] But instead of submitting a new BP-9 Form to the Warden or appealing the Warden's rejection to the applicable Regional Director and then, if necessary, the General Counsel, see 28 C.F.R. § 542.17(c), Lynn simply filed this habeas action. And while Lynn briefly says in a supplemental motion that he “was given the run around” by prison officials vis-a-vis the exhaustion process [Record No. 3 at 2], he neither meaningfully elaborates on this allegation nor identifies any legal authority that allows him to bypass the rest of the administrative grievance process and immediately proceed with his § 2241 petition.
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. 17-5889 (6th Cir. May 7, 2018) (affirming this Court's decision denying a § 2241 petition for failure to exhaust). Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that:
1. Lynn's petition for a writ of habeas corpus [Record No. 1] is
DENIED without prejudice due to his failure to fully exhaust his administrative remedies.
2. Lynn's motion is
DENIED.
3. This action is
DISMISSED and
STRICKEN from the docket.