Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_19-cv-00101/USCOURTS-ared-2_19-cv-00101-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Gray
Plaintiff
Dewayne Hendrix
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

DELTA DIVISION 

JOSEPH GRAY PETITIONER 

Reg. #90958-071 

v. 2:19-cv-00101-BSM-JJV 

DEWAYNE HENDRIX, 

Warden, FCI – Low RESPONDENT 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge 

Brian S. Miller. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. 

Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If 

the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports 

your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the 

United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings 

and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely 

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 

 If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or 

additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at 

the same time that you file your written objections, include the following: 

 1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate. 

 2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing (if such a hearing is granted) was not 

offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge. 

 3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the new hearing in the form 

of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial 

Case 2:19-cv-00101-BSM Document 9 Filed 12/19/19 Page 1 of 4
2

evidence desired to be introduced at the new hearing. 

 From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional 

evidentiary hearing. Mail your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to: 

Clerk, United States District Court 

Eastern District of Arkansas 

600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 

DISPOSITION 

I. INTRODUCTION

 Petitioner Joseph Gray, an inmate at the Forrest City Low Federal Correctional Institution, 

brings this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. No. 1.) He alleges the 

Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) has failed to credit him the good conduct time he is entitled to under 

the First Step Act of 2018. (Id. at 7.) Respondent Dewayne Hendrix, Warden of the Forrest 

City Low FCI, contends Mr. Gray’s Petition should be dismissed because (1) he failed to exhaust 

his administrative remedies and (2) the appropriate good conduct time credits have been applied, 

rendering the Petition moot. (Doc. No. 5.) In a Motion to Supplement Original Petition, Mr. 

Gray counters that he has not been given credit for all of the good conduct time to which he is 

entitled. (Doc. No. 6.) After careful consideration of the Petition, Response, and all supporting 

documents, I recommend the Petition be dismissed without prejudice. 

II. ANALYSIS 

“A prisoner may bring a habeas action challenging the BOP’s execution of his sentence 

only if he first presents his claim to the BOP.” Mathena v. United States, 577 F.3d 943, 946 (8th 

Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Chappel, 208 F.3d 1069, 1069 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam)). 

Federal regulations afford prisoners administrative review of the computation of their credits. 

United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 335 (1992) (citing 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.10--542.16). 

Case 2:19-cv-00101-BSM Document 9 Filed 12/19/19 Page 2 of 4
3

Prisoners are able to seek judicial review of these computations “after exhausting their 

administrative remedies.” Id. (citing United States v. Bayless, 940 F.2d 300, 304-05 (8th Cir. 

1991)). 

Mr. Gray acknowledges he did not utilize the administrative remedy procedures available 

to him. (Doc. No. 1 at 5.) He offers an excuse for his failure to do so: the matter is “time 

sensitive” and the BOP’s failure to act “could lead to wrongful incarceration past point of sentence 

termination.” (Id.) But as Respondent points out, Mr. Gray’s projected release date, after 

applying the good conduct time credits at issue, is in July of 2022. (Doc. Nos. 5 at 1, 5-1 at 2, 

4.) Even assuming Mr. Gray is correct that he is entitled to an additional 112 days of good 

conduct time, as alleged in his Motion to Supplement (Doc. No. 6 at 1), his projected release date 

would still be over two years from now. Accordingly, there is no justification for Mr. Gray’s 

bypassing the administrative remedy procedures, and his § 2241 Petition must be dismissed 

without prejudice. If Mr. Gray has information indicating he has in fact exhausted his 

administrative remedies, or that the exhaustion requirement should be excused, he should so state 

in his objections to this recommendation. 

III. CONCLUSION

IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that:

1. Mr. Gray’s § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) be DISMISSED 

without prejudice. 

2. Mr. Gray’s Motion to Supplement Original Petition (Doc. No. 6) be DENIED as 

moot. 

DATED this 19th day of December 2019. 

Case 2:19-cv-00101-BSM Document 9 Filed 12/19/19 Page 3 of 4
4

 

 ____________________________________ 

 JOE J. VOLPE 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:19-cv-00101-BSM Document 9 Filed 12/19/19 Page 4 of 4