Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01556/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01556-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LISA ALLEN,

Petitioner,

 vs.

PAUL COPENHAVER, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 10-1556 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a federal prisoner incarcerated in Dublin, California, has filed a pro se

petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241 challenging the execution of her

federal sentence. 

STATEMENT

In 2009, petitioner was found guilty in the United States District Court for the Central

District of California of mail fraud and other related counts, and was sentenced to a term of 51

months in federal prison (Pet. 2). Petitioner’s projected release date is August 31, 2012.

ANALYSIS

Petitioner claims that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) is unlawfully refusing to exercise

its discretion to consider her individually for pre-release placement at a Community Corrections

Center (“CCC”) and home confinement. She further claims that the BOP is denying her equal

protection under the law because male inmates are bing categorically granted six months in the

CCC while female prisoners, like herself, are being categorically denied consideration for the

Case 3:10-cv-01556-WHA Document 3 Filed 05/11/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

full twelve months. 

Section 2241 does not specifically require petitioners to exhaust available remedies

before filing petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. Castro-Cortez v. INS, 239 F.3d 1037, 1047

(9th Cir. 2001). Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit requires “as a prudential matter, that habeas

petitioners exhaust available judicial and administrative remedies before seeking relief under §

2241.” Ibid. (citations omitted). The requirement may be waived in limited circumstances

because it is not a jurisdictional prerequisite. Ibid.; see e.g., Kaing v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 994,

1000-01 (9th Cir. 2004) (listing circumstances when waiver of exhaustion requirement may be

appropriate). 

Petitioner states in the petition that she is “in the process of exhausting her

administrative remedies through the BOP’s administrative appeals process, even though she has

been notified by staff that she will be categorically denied, rendering the process futile” (Pet. 3). 

She further asserts that the Deputy Director will not conduct an impartial review of the

Warden’s denial of petitioner’s administrative grievance because the Deputy Director is married

to the Warden. Petitioner’s allegations that exhaustion would be futile are conclusory and

insufficient to excuse her failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Section 2241 is

DISMISSED without prejudice to petitioner filing a new petition after exhausting the BOP’s

administrative appeals process. 

The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29 , 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.10\ALLEN1556.DSM.wpd.

Case 3:10-cv-01556-WHA Document 3 Filed 05/11/10 Page 2 of 2