Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00016/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00016-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONICO ARANZUBIA,

Petitioner,

v.

STEVEN MERLAK,

Respondent.

No. 1:20-cv-00016-SKO (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS

[TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE]

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On January 6, 2020, Petitioner filed the instant petition. He is in the custody of the 

Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) at the Taft Correctional Institution located in Taft, California. 

Petitioner challenges the computation of his federal sentence by the BOP. He claims the BOP 

wrongfully found him ineligible to receive extra time credits under the First Step Act. The 

petition is unexhausted. Therefore, the Court will recommend the petition be DISMISSED 

without prejudice.

DISCUSSION

I. Exhaustion

Before filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, a federal prisoner challenging any 

Case 1:20-cv-00016-DAD-SKO Document 4 Filed 01/10/20 Page 1 of 3
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

circumstance of imprisonment must first exhaust all administrative remedies. Martinez v. 

Roberts, 804 F.2d 570, 571 (9th Cir. 1986); Chua Han Mow v. United States, 730 F.2d 1308, 

1313 (9th Cir. 1984); Ruviwat v. Smith, 701 F.2d 844, 845 (9th Cir. 1983). The requirement that 

federal prisoners exhaust administrative remedies before filing a habeas corpus petition was 

judicially created; it is not a statutory requirement. Brown v. Rison, 895 F.2d 533, 535 (9th Cir. 

1990). Thus, “because exhaustion is not required by statute, it is not jurisdictional.” Id. If 

Petitioner has not properly exhausted his claims, the district court, in its discretion, may either 

“excuse the faulty exhaustion and reach the merits or require the petitioner to exhaust his 

administrative remedies before proceeding in court.” 

The first step in seeking administrative remedies is a request for informal resolution. 28 

C.F.R. § 542.13. When informal resolution procedures fail to achieve sufficient results, the BOP 

makes available to inmates a formal three-level administrative remedy process: (1) a Request for 

Administrative Remedy (“BP-9”) filed at the institution where the inmate is incarcerated; (2) a 

Regional Administrative Remedy Appeal (“BP-10”) filed at the Regional Office for the 

geographic region in which the inmate’s institution is located; and (3) a Central Office 

Administrative Remedy Appeal (“BP-11”) filed with the Office of General Counsel. 28 C.F.R. § 

542.10 et seq. 

According to the petition and attached exhibits, Petitioner submitted a BP-9 “Request for 

Administrative Remedy” on December 11, 2019. (Doc. 1 at 11.) Petitioner indicates the Warden 

denied the request on December 17, 2019. (Doc. 1 at 4.) It appears Petitioner has not sought 

further relief by filing a BP-10 “Regional Administrative Remedy Appeal or a BP-11 “Central 

Office Administrative Remedy Appeal.” Therefore, the claims have not been administratively 

exhausted. 

Petitioner claims exhaustion should be waived for futility because he is challenging an 

established BOP policy. This is pure speculation. It is an open question whether administrative 

appeals at higher levels will result in the same determination. In addition, time is not a factor 

since Petitioner’s projected release date is August 22, 2022. By Petitioner’s calculations, even 

crediting his sentence with the additional time credits will result in a projected release date of 

Case 1:20-cv-00016-DAD-SKO Document 4 Filed 01/10/20 Page 2 of 3
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

3

June, 2021. (Doc. 1 at 3.)

Although the exhaustion requirement is subject to waiver in § 2241 cases “it is not lightly 

to be disregarded.” Murillo v. Mathews, 588 F.2d 759, 762, n.8 (9th Cir. 1978) (citation omitted).

A “key consideration” in exercising such discretion is whether “relaxation of the requirement 

would encourage the deliberate bypass of the administrative scheme[.]” Laing v. Ashcroft, 370 

F.3d 994, 1000 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, it is clear that 

Petitioner has deliberately bypassed the administrative review process. Such action should not be 

condoned. The Court finds the petition should be dismissed for lack of exhaustion. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be 

DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 

of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections 

with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00016-DAD-SKO Document 4 Filed 01/10/20 Page 3 of 3