United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
D. MARIANI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Petitioner Winston
Hinds ("Hinds"), an inmate currently confined at
the Schuylkill Federal Prison Camp, in Minersville,
Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1). In the habeas petition, Hinds
challenges the General Counsel's alleged failure to
respond to an administrative remedy appeal. [Id. at
p. 2). The petition is ripe for disposition and, for the
reasons that follow, will be dismissed for lack of
review of Hinds' administrative remedies reveals that he
filed five administrative remedies from February 13, 2015,
through March 20, 2017, the date he filed the instant
petition. (Doc. 8-1, pp. 3-5, Declaration of Matthew Lavelle,
BOP Attorney, ("Lavelle Decl.")
9). The remedies relate to the Residential Drug Abuse Program
December 24, 2015, Hinds filed administrative remedy
846626-F1 regarding an RDAP denial. (Id. at ¶
10; Doc. 8-1, p. 8, Administrative Remedy Generalized
Retrieval). This remedy was rejected and Hinds was instructed
to resubmit his appeal in proper form. (Id.). On
December 31, 2015, Hinds filed administrative remedy
846626-F2 regarding an RDAP denial. (Lavelle Deck ¶ 11;
Doc. 8-1, p. 8, Administrative Remedy Generalized Retrieval).
This remedy was denied, and Hinds was instructed to file an
appeal to the Northeast Regional Office. (Id.).
February 1, 2016, Hinds appealed the institutional denial of
846626-F2 to the Northeast Regional Office, designated as
administrative remedy 846626-R1. (Lavelle Decl. ¶ 12;
Doc. 8-1, p. 9, Administrative Remedy Generalized Retrieval).
This remedy was rejected as not legible, and Hinds was
instructed to re-file the remedy. (Id.).
February 10, 2016, Hinds filed administrative remedy
846626-R2 appealing the institutional denial of 846626-F2.
(Lavelle Decl. ¶ 13; Doc. 8-1, p. 9, Administrative
Remedy Generalized Retrieval). On March 10, 2016, the
regional director denied the remedy and instructed Hinds to
file an appeal to the BOP's Central Office.
(Id.; Doc. 4, p. 4).
March 28, 2016, Hinds filed administrative remedy 846626-A1
appealing the regional denial of 846626-R2. (Lavelle Decl.
¶ 14; Doc. 8-1, p. 10, Administrative Remedy Generalized
Retrieval). On April 11, 2016, the Central Office rejected
the appeal. (Id.; Doc. 4, p.5). Hinds was advised
that the remedy was in improper form and he was instructed to
re-file the remedy in proper form. (Id.).
is no record that Hinds continued with remedy 846626.
(Lavelle Decl. ¶ 15). The BOP Central Office has no
record that Hinds attempted to re-file administrative remedy
846626. (Lavelle Decl. ¶ 16; Administrative Remedy
Generalized Retrieval). Additionally, the Central Office does
not have any record of correspondence from Hinds. (Lavelle
Decl. ¶ 16). If Hinds filed administrative remedy 846626
at the Central Office level, it would have been logged into
BOP's database, and Hinds would have received a notice of
receipt with an anticipated response date. (Lavelle Decl.
instant petition was filed on March 20, 2017. (Doc. 1).
Failure to State a Cognizable Claim under 28 U.S.C. §
habeas petition may be brought by a prisoner who seeks to
challenge either the fact or duration of his confinement.
Preiser v. Rodriguez,411 U.S. 45, 494 (1973);
Tedford v. Hepting,990 F.2d 745, 748 (3d Cir.
1993). "Habeas relief is clearly quite limited: The
underlying purpose of proceedings under the 'Great
Writ' of habeas corpus has traditionally been to
'inquire into the legality of the detention, and the only
judicial relief authorized was the discharge of the prisoner
or his admission to bail, and that only if his detention were
found to be unlawful.'" Learner v. Fauver,288 F.3d 532, 540 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting Powers of
Congress and the Court Regarding the Availability and Scope
of Review, 114 Har v. LRev. 1551, 1553 (2001)).
However, when seeking to impose liability due to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured
by the Constitution and ...