United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
RICHARD P. CONABOY, United States District Judge
Lee Johnson, an inmate presently confined at the United
States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania (USP-Lewisburg),
filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio. Petitioner's action was
subsequently transferred to this Court. Service of the
petition was previously ordered.
was arrested on April 19, 2011 on drug related charges in
Sylvania Township, Ohio. While confined on those state
charges, Johnson was indicted on a state robbery charge in
Lucas County, Ohio. The drug charges which led to
Petitioner's initial arrest were later dismissed.
20, 2011 Petitioner was released on bail in his Lucas County
case. On July 8, 2011, Johnson was sentenced to a 17 month
term of imprisonment on unrelated state criminal charges from
Wood County, Ohio. On July 20, 2011, Petitioner was sentenced
to a 2 year term on the Lucas County robbery charge which was
ordered to run concurrently to the Wood County sentence.
serving those sentences, Petitioner was indicted on a bank
robbery charge in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio. On November 26, 2012, Johnson was
sentenced to a 70 month term of imprisonment by the Northern
District of Ohio. Following completion of his federal
criminal proceedings, Petitioner was returned to Ohio state
custody to complete service his state
was granted parole by the State of Ohio on June 28, 2013 and
was transferred into federal custody. His pending petition
does not challenge the legality of his federal conviction or
sentence. Rather, Johnson maintains that the Federal Bureau
of Prisons (BOP) erred in computing his federal sentence
because it failed to provide him with 7½ months of
good conduct time credits. See id. at p. 4. Johnson
elaborates that he is entitled to credit for 7½ months
of time served in a Ohio state correctional facility
following imposition of his federal sentence.
argues that the petition should be denied because Johnson
failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies and
his sentence was properly computed. See Doc. 10, p.
28, United States Code § 2241, vests the federal
district courts with jurisdiction to grant a writ of habeas
corpus to persons in custody in violation of the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28
U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Habeas corpus review under §
2241 “allows a federal prisoner to challenge the
‘execution' of his sentence.” Woodall v.
Federal Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 241 (3d Cir.
2005). A habeas corpus petition may be brought by a prisoner
who seeks to challenge either the fact or duration of his
confinement in prison. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411
U.S. 475 (1973), Telford v. Hepting, 980 F.2d 745,
748 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 920
habeas relief is available only “where the deprivation
of rights is such that it necessarily impacts the fact or
length of detention.” Leamer v. Fauver, 288
F.3d 532, 540 (3d Cir. 2002). Since Petitioner is alleging
that the BOP failed to properly calculate his federal
sentence, this matter is properly asserted under § 2241.
Respondent contends that according to BOP records although
Johnson filed administrative grievances regarding two
unrelated issues, he failed to seek administrative relief
with respect to his pending claim of improper sentence
calculation. Consequently, Respondent concludes that the
petition is subject to dismissal on the basis of
non-exhaustion. It is noted that although provided with an
opportunity to do so, Petitioner has not filed a reply to the
well-settled that "[a] federal prisoner ordinarily may
not seek habeas corpus relief until he has exhausted all
available administrative remedies." Bradshaw v.
Carlson, 682 F.2d 1050, 1052 (3d Cir. 1981)(emphasis
added)” Porter v. Nussle, 122 S.Ct. 983, 992
(2002); Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 n. 6
(2001). A party is required to exhaust administrative
remedies before seeking relief in federal court unless
Congress has indicated to the contrary or the available
administrative remedies are inherently inadequate. Young
v. Quinlan,960 F.2d 351, 356 (3d Cir. ...