Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02129/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02129-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Schelia A. Clark
Respondent
Kenya Traylor
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENYA TRAYLOR, 

Petitioner,

v.

SCHELIA A. CLARK, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-2129 MHP (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Kenya Traylor, an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution - Dublin, filed this

pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the execution

of her sentence. Upon initial review, the court dismissed one claim and found cognizable a

claim that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) allegedly wrongly determined that Traylor was

ineligible for a residential drug abuse treatment program (“RDAP”) and the reduction in

sentence available for successful completion of the program. The court issued an order to

show cause why the writ should not be granted. Respondent filed an answer. Traylor did not

file a traverse and the deadline by which to do so has long passed. 

In her answer, respondent argues that the action should be dismissed as unripe and

unexhausted because Traylor never applied for the RDAP and never pursued administrative

remedies for her claim. Traylor presented no evidence or argument to controvert

respondent’s evidence showing that Traylor had not applied for the RDAP and had not filed

an administrative grievance regarding her desired admittance to the RDAP. 

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

circumstance of her custody or execution of her sentence must first exhaust all administrative

Case 3:06-cv-02129-MHP Document 10 Filed 08/29/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

remedies available to her. See United States v. Checchini, 967 F.2d 348, 350 (9th Cir. 1992)

(time credits); Lyle v. Sivley, 805 F. Supp. 755, 757 (D. Ariz. 1992) (placement in halfway

house). The judicially-created requirement that petitioner exhaust administrative remedies

may be overridden in exceptional circumstances. See Fraley v. United States Bureau of

Prisons, 1 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir. 1993). The administrative grievance and appeals process

for prisoners under the custody of the BOP is described at 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.10 - 542.15. The

steps required to complete the appeal process include informal presentation of a claim for

resolution, request for administrative review by the warden on a form BP-9, appeal to the

regional director on a form BP-10, and an appeal to the general counsel on a form BP-11. 

"Appeal to the General Counsel is the final administrative appeal." 28 C.F.R. § 542.15(a). 

Traylor did not exhaust administrative remedies with the BOP before filing this

action, as she was required to do. She also has not shown exceptional circumstances that

would excuse the non-exhaustion. Therefore, this action is dismissed without prejudice to

Traylor filing a new action after she exhausts her administrative remedies. The clerk shall

close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2007 ______________________

 Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02129-MHP Document 10 Filed 08/29/07 Page 2 of 2