Case ID: f-appx_594/html/0377-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael Curtis REYNOLDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Linda McGREW; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
    Nos. 14-55090, 14-55292.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 17, 2015.
    
    Filed Feb. 25, 2015.
    Michael Curtis Reynolds, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
    Diana L. Pauli, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Patricia Daffodil Tyminski, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los'Angeles, CA, for Respondents-Appel-lees.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, federal prisoner Michael Curtis Reynolds appeals pro se from the district court’s judgments dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petitions. We review the dismissal of a section 2241 petition de novo, see Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.

In Appeal No. 14-55090, Reynolds challenges the loss of good time credits following a disciplinary hearing. In Appeal No. 14-55292, Reynolds contends that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) improperly classified him as a high-security-risk inmate and improperly housed him in a high-security facility. The district court did not err by dismissing either of Reynolds’s petitions for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies available to him. See Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir.2012). Although Reynolds attempted to appeal the BOP’s decisions, the record shows that the BOP rejected his appeals because they did not meet BOP requirements. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.17 (2012). We are also unpersuaded by Reynolds’s argument that the documents submitted to the district court by respondents were fraudulent or false.

We reject as meritless Reynolds’s challenges to the district court’s handling of his petitions.

Reynolds’s request for an emergency temporary restraining order is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.