Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01340/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01340-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

,-

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

CARLOS B. DELGADO, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

FI LED 

U,nited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

APR 2 5 1990 

AOBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-1340 

(D.C. No. 89-M-1184) 

( Dist. of Colo.) 

ANTHONY BELASKI, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

\ ' ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Carlos D. Delgado, an inmate serving a sentence at the 

Federal Correctional Institute in Englewood, Colorado, filed a 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

(1982), in which he alleged that disciplinary action taken against 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-1340 Document: 01019972492 Date Filed: 04/25/1990 Page: 1 
' 

him violated his constitutional rights. The district court 

dismissed the petition without prejudice because Delgado did not 

exhaust his administrative remedies. We affirm. 

In April 1989, an investigation by prison officials uncovered 

plans to stage an escape. Based on information provided by an 

informant, another inmate, and a taped telephone conversation 

between Delgado and his mother, the Disciplinary Hearing Officer 

(DHO) found that Delgado was involved in the formulation of the 

escape plans. He was sanctioned by the loss of all his 

accumulated good time credits, a disciplinary transfer, and sixty 

days disciplinary segregation. Delgado then filed this petition 

for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he was denied due 

process in the disciplinary hearing and that there was 

insufficient evidence to support the findings of the DHO. 

As a prerequisite to judicial consideration of a petition for 

a writ of habeas corpus, an inmate is required to exhaust his or 

her administrative remedies. See Williams v. O'Brien, 792 F.2d 

986, 987 (10th Cir. 1986). Delgado concedes that he did not 

exhaust the administrative remedies available to him pursuant to 

28 C.F.R. § 541.19 (1988). He contends that because the DHO 

report was prepared late1 and because he filed his petition prior 

1 Delgado asserts the regulations require that the DHO Report 

be issued within ten days. On the contrary, the language of the 

regulations states that a written copy of the Report shall be 

given to the inmate "ordinarily within 10 days of the DHO's 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-1340 Document: 01019972492 Date Filed: 04/25/1990 Page: 2 
to the preparation of that report, the filing of the petition for 

a writ of habeas corpus occurred when no administrative remedies 

were available. 

In support of his position, Delgado cites to Uziel v. Hadden, 

779 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1985). Uziel involved an inmate whose case, 

already exhausted at the administrative level, was reopened by the 

regional counsel of the United States Parole Commission after the 

discovery of an error in assessing his salient factor score. The 

Second Circuit held that "[b]ecause the unexhausted administrative 

remedies came into being after Uziel's petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus had been served," the petition should not have been 

dismissed. Id. at 5 (emphasis added). Here, by contrast, Delgado 

never exhausted his administrative remedies, nor had any time 

limit on the right to appeal elapsed. The Bureau of Prisons 

regulations, which state that the DHO should advise an inmate of 

the right to appeal when written notice of the decision is given, 

28 C.F.R. § 541.19, are instructions which do not create anew an 

administrative remedy. Delgado had an administrative remedy 

available, and his filing of the petition prior to the issuance of 

the DHO Report does not excuse his failure to exhaust. 2 

decision." 28 C.F.R. § 541.17(g) (1988). The DHO hearing and 

decision here occurred on June 29, 1989. Delgado filed his habeas 

petition on July 12. The report was received by Delgado on July 

25. 

2 Delgado also asserts that an administrative appeal would be 

fruitless; such an assertion is insufficient to excuse the 

exhaustion requirement. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-1340 Document: 01019972492 Date Filed: 04/25/1990 Page: 3 
/ 

We AFFIRM the order of the district court dismissing without 

prejudice the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The manda te 

shall i ssue forthwith. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-1340 Document: 01019972492 Date Filed: 04/25/1990 Page: 4