Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06353/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06353-0/pdf.json

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

---

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

APR 1 7 1991 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

JOHN FRANCIS ROURKE, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) No. 90-6353 

v. ) ( D. C. No. CIV-90-1199-T) 

) (W .D. Oklahoma) 

A.F. BEELER, Warden, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, 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. 

John Francis Rourke, a federal prisoner incarcerated at the 

El Reno, Oklahoma, Federal Correctional Institute, appeals the 

*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: 90-6353 Document: 010110034227 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 1 
district court's dismissal without prejudice of his various claims 

against prison officials. Specifically, Mr. Rourke argues that he 

has been harassed and disciplined for filing administrative and 

legal actions against certain prison officials. He claims that he 

has been denied access to an adequate law library, and denied an 

opportunity to purchase writing supplies and stamps to file his 

various legal actions. The district court held that Mr. Rourke 

had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies within the 

Federal Bureau of Prisons and dismissed his writ of habeas corpus 

without prejudice so Mr. Rourke could pursue his administrative 

appeals. We affirm. 

In Brice v. Day. 604 F.2d 664, 666-67 (10th Cir. 1979), cert. 

denied, 444 U.S. 1086 (1980), we held that a federal prisoner must 

exhaust administrative remedies before a federal district court 

may entertain a habeas corpus petition. This exhaustion 

requirement applies even in cases where the prisoner claims prison 

officials have violated his constitutional rights. Id. This 

court has strictly adhered to this rule of exhaustion in cases of 

prisoners filing habeas corpus petitions, "to reduce the intrusion 

of the courts into the administration of the prisons, ... and to 

provide some fact-finding so that when or if the matter reaches 

the trial court, it will have some starting place." Id. at 667 

(citations omitted). The exhaustion requirement also serves to 

curb abuses of the habeas corpus process by prisoners. 

noted in Brice: 

As we 

The prisoners in this action thus must work initially 

within this structure of authority, control, and 

established grievance procedure. These petitions cannot 

be misused as devices to challenge this authority and 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6353 Document: 010110034227 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 2 
relationship. Instead the petitions must be considered 

and used only as bona fide grievances and claims to be 

resolved. They are not tickets to an immediate 

confrontation with the guards and supervisors outside 

the prison and in the court room no matter how they are 

framed. 

Id. at 667. 

The regulations contained in 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.13, 542.14, and 

542.15 provide the procedure for filing and appealing prisoners' 

complaints. Section 542.13 states that the first step in the 

procedure is for prisoners to attempt to informally resolve their 

grievances with staff. If this is unsuccessful, the prisoner may 

file a written grievance with the Warden. Section 542.14 then 

provides that the Warden must respond within fifteen days. If the 

Warden fails to respond within this period, which may include a 

fifteen-day extension period, the prisoner may consider the 

Warden's failure to respond to be a denial of the requested 

relief. Section 542.15 next states that the prisoner may appeal 

the Warden's decision (presumably whether it is an actual or 

assumed denial of relief) to the Regional Director within twenty 

days. The Regional Director has thirty days to respond. If the 

prisoner is still not satisfied, an appeal may be taken to the 

General Counsel within thirty days from the date of the Regional 

Director's response. The General Counsel has thirty days in which 

to respond. Section 542.15 concludes: "Appeal to the Office of 

General Counsel is the final administrative appeal in the Bureau 

of Prisons." 

The district court discussed Mr. Rourke's failure to properly 

file an appeal at even the Regional Director level. While noting 

that the regulations may provide for extensions of time for filing 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6353 Document: 010110034227 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 3 
appeals due to excusable delay, § 542.15, the district court 

concluded that, "[i]n any event, it is apparent that Petitioner 

has not exhausted his administrative remedies before the Bureau of 

Prisons." 

Two facts support the district court's conclusion. First, an 

examination of the record shows that Mr. Rourke has not attempted 

to appeal to the General Counsel, the final step in the required 

appeals process. In addition, we note that Mr. Rourke's attempt 

to file his appeal with the Regional Director was defective. 

Second, the record also shows that Mr. Rourke began pursuing his 

administrative appeal by filing his "Discipline Hearing Appeal" of 

August 22, 1990, (Doc. 20, exhibit 4) at the regional level 

approximately one month after he filed his habeas corpus petition. 

Under Brice, all administrative remedies must be exhausted prior 

to the filing of the habeas corpus petition. 604 F.2d at 667-68. 

See also McCarthy v. Maddigan, 914 F.2d 1411, 1413 (10th Cir. 

1990). 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-6353 Document: 010110034227 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 4