Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04766/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04766-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHERYL BRENTON, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

PAUL COPENHAVER, Warden, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

C 09-4766 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket No. 2)

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

corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. She argues that officials at the prison have failed to

individually consider her for release to a Community Corrections Center (“CCC”) and for home

confinement in violation of her constitutional rights. She has filed a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis which is now DENIED as Petitioner has more than ample funds to pay the $5.00 filing fee

(docket no. 2).

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 F3d 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.” Id.

(citations omitted). The requirement may be waived in limited circumstances because it is not a

jurisdictional prerequisite. Id.; see, e.g., Laing v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 994, 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2004)

(listing circumstances when waiver of exhaustion requirement may be appropriate). 

Petitioner claims that the exhaustion requirement should be waived in her case. She argues

Case 3:09-cv-04766-JSW Document 5 Filed 05/03/10 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

that exhausting her claim through the BOP's administrative appeals process would be futile. (Petition

at 3.) She argues that the BOP issues a form letter stating that the individual has been considered

and denied based on individual needs while "staff" tell prisoners that they are being categorically

denied. Petitioner mentions a “town hall” meeting at the prison in 2009 but does not identify the

identity of the person or the statements that were made. Generalized statements by unidentified staff

members who may or may not be authorized to speak to the issue do not show a sufficient

justification for her to skip the administrative appeal process. The actual BOP decision makers

should decide her case before this Court does. 

Petitioner also argues that exhaustion is futile because the deputy director who will review

the warden's decision is married to him. However, the regulations provide for the regional director,

and then the general counsel, to review the warden's decision, and do not provide for the deputy

director to play a role in the review process. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.15. It is far from clear that

Petitioner’s pursuit of administrative remedies would be futile. Waiver of the exhaustion

requirement is not warranted under these circumstances.

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without

prejudice to refiling after exhausting the BOP's administrative appeals process. The Clerk shall

close the file and enter judgment in accordance with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 3, 2010 JEFFREY S. WHITE 

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-04766-JSW Document 5 Filed 05/03/10 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHERYL BRENTON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PAUL COPENHAVER et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV09-04766 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on May 3, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office

delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Cheryl Brenton

41437-048

5675 8th Street Camp Parks

Dublin, CA 94568

Dated: May 3, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:09-cv-04766-JSW Document 5 Filed 05/03/10 Page 3 of 3