Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05174/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05174-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Schelia A. Clark
Respondent
Estela Espinoza
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

ESTELA ESPINOZA,

Petitioner,

 vs.

SCHELIA A. CLARK, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-5174 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner, a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution in Dublin,

California ("FCI Dublin"), has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the lawfulness of the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP")

regulations prohibiting her transfer to a Community Correctional Center ("CCC")

until ten percent of her sentence remains. Petitioner claims the regulations,

codified at 28 C.F.R. §§ 570.20 and 570.21, are inconsistent with the clear

congressional intent articulated in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). Petitioner has not

exhausted the BOP's administrative appeals process, however.

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, "we require, as a

prudential matter, that habeas petitioners exhaust available judicial and

administrative remedies before seeking relief under § 2241." Id. (citations

Case 3:07-cv-05174-CRB Document 2 Filed 10/11/07 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

omitted). The requirement may be waived in limited circumstances because it is

not a jurisdictional prerequisite. Id.; see 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 that exhausting her claim through the BOP's administrative

appeals process "would be futile here because the BOP likely would reject

Petitioner's appeal based on its official policy that she is challenging." Pet. at 4. 

She also fears that the process may take too long. The court finds petitioner's

arguments unpersuasive.

Petitioner's mere fear that the appeal process may take too long is simply

not a sufficient basis to waive the exhaustion requirement. Nor is her

unsupported contention that pursuit of administrative remedies would be a futile

gesture. Recent cases and actions of the BOP suggest otherwise: All four

circuits that have addressed the validity of the BOP policy at issue here, 28

C.F.R. §§ 570.20 and 570.21, have found it invalid. See Wedelstedt v. Wiley,

477 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 2007); Levine v. Apker, 455 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006);

Fults v. Sanders, 442 F.3d 1088 (8th Cir. 2006); Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of

Prisons, 432 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2005). So have the federal district courts in the

Ninth Circuit that have so far addressed the issue. See Whistler v. Wrigley, No.

C 06-0860-LJO-WMW, 2007 WL 1655787, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 7, 2007)

(listing cases). Not surprisingly, recent habeas cases such as Whistler have been

dismissed as moot after the BOP informed the court that it had evaluated the

petitioner "'without reference to the time constraints imposed by 28 C.F.R.

570.20-21," and transferred him to a halfway house. Id. at *6. Waiver of the

exhaustion requirement is not justified under these circumstances. 

Case 3:07-cv-05174-CRB Document 2 Filed 10/11/07 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 3

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 is DISMISSED

without prejudice to refiling after exhausting the BOP's administrative appeals

process. 

The clerk shall close the file and terminate all pending motions as moot. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Oct. 11, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.07\Espinoza, E1.or1.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-05174-CRB Document 2 Filed 10/11/07 Page 3 of 3