The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sylvia H. Rambo United States District Judge
Petitioner Samuel J. Miceli ("Miceli"), an inmate currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at Allenwood ("FCI-Allenwood"), in White Deer, Pennsylvania, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking immediate placement in a Residential Re-entry Center ("RRC") pursuant to the Second Chance Act of 2007.*fn1 For the reasons that follow, the petition will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
In July 2002, Miceli was convicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York for bankruptcy fraud and illegal monetary transactions. (Doc. 5-2 at 2.) He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for ninety-seven months followed by a three-year term of supervision. (Id.) His projected release date from the Bureau of Prisons' ("BOP") custody via good conduct time is May 31, 2009.
On March 26, 2008, Miceli sent a letter to the sentencing judge, requesting that he "intervene and recommend an earlier halfway house release or possibly converting the last year of my sentence to home confinement." (Doc. 6 at 6.) In his response dated April 29, 2008, the judge informed him that, according to Miceli's BOP case manager, although the relevant statute authorizes up to a year in a halfway house, the most time for which Miceli would qualify is four to six months. (Id.) The judge further informed Miceli that he does not have input in the matter; rather, the BOP has discretion in deciding the length of any stay in a halfway house. (Id.)
On May 3, 2008, Miceli sent an "inmate request to staff member" to Respondent, Warden Jerry Martinez, requesting a twelve-month placement in a RRC. (Id. at 11.) The warden responded on May 9, 2008 and informed Miceli that consideration of his placement in a RRC was scheduled for program review on or before June 6, 2008. (Id. at 14.)
On May 16, 2008, Miceli's unit team at FCI-Allenwood considered him for placement in a RRC. (Doc. 5-2 at 14.) Upon review, the unit team recommended RRC placement for the last 150 to 180 days of Miceli's term of imprisonment. (Id.)
On May 19, 2008, Miceli sent an "inmate request to staff member" to his case manager, M. Hause, requesting information on why he was not recommended for a twelve-month RRC placement. (Id. at 15.) In her response dated May 20, 2008, M. Hause reiterated the standards used to determine Miceli's eligibility for the twelve-month RRC placement. (Id. at 16.) She further stated, "[Five to six months of RRC placement] is of sufficient duration to provide the greatest likelihood of successful reintegration into the community." (Id.)
On May 23, 2008, Miceli sent another "inmate request to staff member" request to Warden Martinez, requesting additional time in a RRC. (Id. at 17-18.) The warden responded on June 2, 2008. (Id. at 19.) He stated, after reviewing Miceli's central file and unit team review,
Although I empathize with your current situation, I don't find any compelling reasons to request additional RRC placement time. A 150--180 day RRC placement is of sufficient duration to provide the greatest likelihood of successful reintegration into the community. Therefore, your request for additional RRC placement time is denied. (Id. at 19.)
The record indicates that Miceli has filed no requests for administrative remedies with respect to his request for RRC placement.*fn2 Miceli has filed only one request for administrative remedy while incarcerated at FCI-Allenwood. The request was received at the institution level on December 18, 2007 and pertained to his security and custody classification. (Id. at 20.) That request was denied on January 2, 2008, and Miceli did not file an appeal. (Id.)
On July 22, 2008, Miceli filed the instant habeas petition. (Doc. 1.) On August 5, 2008, the court issued an order directing the respondent to show cause on or before August 26, 2008, why habeas relief should not be granted. (Doc. 4.) In his response to the instant petition, Respondent contends that Miceli's habeas petition should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. 5.) He further contends that the Second Chance Act requires neither a mandatory twelve-month RRC placement nor ...