### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Fe br uar y 2, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 14349 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -003 00 -C V -L S C -S J E F F E R Y B . H I C K S , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s M A R T H A L . J O R D A N , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 2, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: Je ff er y B . H ick s, a p ro se fe d er al p riso n er , ap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’s2

di s m i s s a l of

hi s pe t i t i on f

orw r i tof

habe a s c orpus , w hi c h w a s f i l e d pur s ua ntt o 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 . H ic k s ’s p e titio n w a s d is m is s e d b e c a u s e h e f a ile d to e x h a u s t h is adm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es , and al t ernat i vel y, on the m er i t s. O n app ea l , H i cks a rgues thatthe G ov ernm entw ai ved any fai l ure t o exh austadm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es b e c a u s e th e G o v e rn m e n t a d d r e s s e d th e s u b s ta n c e o f H ic k s ’s c la im s in its ar gu m ent s. H i cks a l so cont ends thatbecause he w rot e s ever al l ett er s t o the B ureau o f P ri so n s (“ B O P ”) reg ard i n g h i s nunc pr o tunc cl ai m for at i m e c re di t–and w as a d v is e d to s e e k r e lie f

in f e d e r a l c o u r t– e x h a u s tio n o f a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s w o u ld h a v e b e e n f

u tile . W h e r e a p e t i t i o n f

o rw r i to f

h ab e a s c o rp u s i s b r o u g h tp u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 4 1 , th e e x h a u s tio n o f a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s is ju r is d ic tio n a l. See W i nck v . E ngland , 3 2 7 F .3 d 1 2 9 6 , 1 3 0 0 n .1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ; G on zalezv. U ni ted Stat es , 959 F . 2d 21 1, 21 2 (11 th C i r. 19 92 ) ( per c uri am ). W e m ustre sol ve j uri sdi ct i on al i ss ues b e f o r e w e a d d r e s s th e m e r its o f a n y u n d e r ly in g c la im s . Se e Ste e l C o. v . C i t i

z e ns f or a B et terE nv’t , 523 U . S . 83, 93- 102, 118 S . C t . 1003, 1012- 16, 140 L . E d. 2d 2 1 0 (1 9 9 8 ). A ru l i n g o n su b j ectm att er j u ri sd i ct i o n i s rev i ew ed d e n o v o , as i s a d e n ia l o f h ab e a s r e lie f

u n d e r§ 2 2 4 1 . See M

a c G i n n i t i e v . H

o b b s G r o u

p , LLC , 420 F .3 d 1 2 3 4 , 1 2 3 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ; Ski nn erv. W i l ey , 3 5 5 F .3 d 1 2 9 3 , 1 2 9 4 ( 1 1 th C ir .) ( p e rc u r ia m ) , ce rt. deni ed , 541 U . S . 1036, 124 S . C t . 2112, 158 L . E d. 2d 722Although theregulations have be en revised since Lucas , w edono t be lievethe se 1 revisions render Lucas ’s description of the B OP regulatory schemeany

less accurate . See, e .g. , Administrative Remedy

Program, 59 F ed. Reg . 50,179 (Oc t. 3, 1994) (propose d rule); 61 F ed. Reg . 86 (Jan. 2, 1996) (final rule ) (c odified at 28 C.F.R. pt. 542). 3 (200 4). T h e A tto rn e y G e n e r a l h a s th e a u th o r ityto d e te rm in e w h a t c r e d it, if a n y , is d u e a p r is o n e rf

o rtim e s e rv e d , a n d th e A tto rn e y G e n e r a l h a s d e le g a te d th e r ig h t to m a k e th is d e te rm in a tio n to th e B O P . See R odri gu ezv. L am er , 60 F . 3d 745, 747 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ; U

ni te d State s v . L uc as , 898 F . 2d 1554, 1555- 56 ( 11th C i r . 1990) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . A pr i s one rs e e ki ng c r e di ta ga i ns thi s s e nt e nc e f ort i m e i n c us t ody m us te xha us tB O P a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s , ore l s e the di s tr i c tc our tha s no ju r is d ic tio n to h e a rh is c la im s . L uc as , 89 8 F . 2d at15 56 . T he B O P has e st abl i shed r e gul a t i ons gove rni ng f orm a l r e vi e w of

i nm a t e c om pl a i nt s r e l a t i ng t o a ny a s pe c tof im p r is o n m e n t. Se e i d. ; 28 C . F . R . §§ 542. 10- . 19. T he s e r e gul a t i ons “ s e toutthe procedures thatpri soners m ustpu rs ue pri or t o see ki ng re l i ef i n a di stri ctcourt . ” L uc as , 8 9 8 F . 2 d a t1 5 5 6 . T h e r e g u l a t i o n s i n c l u d e a n ap p e a l s p r o c e s s th a ta l l o ws 1 th e B O P ’s G e n e r a l C o u n s e l to m a k e th e u ltim a te d e c is io n . See 2 8 C. F. R. § 5 42 . 15 (a ). H ic k s d o e s n o t d is p u te th e G o v e rn m e n t’s c la im th a t h e f a ile d to p u r s u e f

u lly the r e gul a t ory s c he m e out l i ne d above . R a the r , he c ont e nds tha t( 1) the G ove rnm e ntw a i ve d a ny f a i l ur e t o e xha us ton hi s pa r tby a ddr e s s i ng the m e r i t s ofLucasconclude d that the exhaustion requirement in § 2241 cases wa s jurisdictional 2 after examining 18 U.S.C. § 3585 and its prede cessor , 18 U.S.C § 3568. See 898 F.2d at 1554- 56. We have reasone d that “[a]lthough judicially develope d exhaustion requirements might be waived f or discretionary

rea sons by

courts, sta tutorily

cre ated e xhaustion requirements bind the parties a nd the cour

ts.” Richardson v. Reno , 1 62 F .3 d 1 33 8, 13 74(1 1th Cir . 1 99 8) (emph a sis added) , judgment vac ated on other grounds , 526 U.S. 1142, 119 S. C t. 2016, 143 L . Ed. 2d 1029 (1999). F ailure to c omply with statutory

exhaustion requirements deprives a c ourt of jurisdiction; thus “mandatory statutory exhaustion i s not satisfied by a judicial conc lusion that the re quirement ne ed not apply due to futility .” Id. ; cf. Gallo Cattle Co. v. United States De p’t of Agric. , 159 F.3d 1194, 1197 ( 9th Cir. 1998) (“[W] hile judicially-create d exhaustion requirements may

be waived by

the cour ts for discretionary

rea sons, statutorily-provided exhaustion requirements deprive the cour t of jurisdiction and, thus, prec lude any exercise of discretion by

the cour t.”). But see Rodriguez , 6 0 F .3 d at 74 7 ( de c liningto add re ss exha us tio n in § 2241 context where G overnment did not raise issue of petitioner’s failureto exhaust). 4 hi s c as e, and (2) i n any event , exhaust i on w ou l d h ave been fut i l e a nd w as there fore un nece ss ary. G i ven o ur prece dentthatthe exhaust i on re qu i re m enti n § 22 41 ca se s s u c h a s H ic k s ’s is ju r is d ic tio n a l, w h e th e rh e m a y e v e n a s s e r t aw a iv e ro rf u tility exce pt i on t o the re qu i re m enti s quest i on abl e. A ss um i ng , w i tho utdeci di ng , that 2 H i c ks m a y i nde e d a r gue the s e e xc e pt i ons , hi s a r gum e nt s pr ove una va i l i ng. T he G ove rnm e ntdi d notw a i ve the i s s ue of a dm i ni s tr a t i ve e xha us t i on by a r gui ng a lte rn a tiv e ly th a t H ic k s ’s c la im s f a ile d o n th e m e r its . See F ed. R . C i v. P . 8(e) ( p e rm ittin g th e a s s e r tio n o f a lte rn a tiv e a n d e v e n in c o n s is te n t d e f e n s e s ) . W i th r e s pe c tt o f

ut i l i ty , H i c ks not e s tha the s e nts e ve r a l l e tt e r s c onc e rni ng h i s nunc pr o tunc r e q u e s t s t o a BO P o f f i c i a l , a Re g i o n a l I n ma t e Sy s t e ms Ad m i n i s tr a t o r( “ R I S A” ) . Ac c o r d i n g t o Hi c k s , th e R I S A e x p l a i n e d th a tth e B OP c oul d notgr a ntthe r e l i e f H i c ks s ought , a nd i ndi c a t e d tha tH i c ks w oul d ha ve t o go fe dera l courtfor s uch rel i ef . W e a re no tpers uaded thatH i cks’ s c orre spon denceIn Bo nn e r v. Ci ty of Pricha rd, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e 3 adoptingas bindingprec edent all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of busine ss on September 30, 1981. 5 w i th th e R IS A ab o u tH i ck s’ s nunc pr o tunc r e que s t s de m ons tr a t e s tha tf ul l us e of the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s a va i l abl e t o H i c ks w oul d ha ve be e n f ut i l e . T he r e gul a t ory s c he m e i nc l ude s a pr oc e s s f orappe a l t o the R e gi ona l D i r e c t or , a nd u ltim a te ly , th e G e n e r a l C o u n s e l. See 2 8 C . F . R . § 5 4 2 . 1 5 (a). Iti s n o tcl ear th atu se o f th is p r o c e s s w o u ld h a v e b e e n m e a n in g le s s . Cf . Al ex a n de rv . H

a wk , 159 F . 3d 13 21 , 13 27 (11th C i r. 19 98 ) ( desc ri bi ng , i n con t extof the P ri son L i t i gat i on R ef orm A c t , num e r ous pol i c y r e a s ons f a vor i ng e xha us t i on, i nc l udi ng the a voi da nc e of p r e m a tu r e in te rru p tio n s in th e a d m in is tr a tiv e p r o c e s s a n d a llo w in g a n a g e n c y to di sc ov erand correc ti t s ow n err ors) . Indeed, com pl i ance w i th B O P procedures he l ps e ns ur e tha t , pr i ort o j udi c i a l r e vi e w , the B O P t a ke s a c ohe r e nt , de f i ni t i ve p o s itio n o n th e m e r its o f a p e titio n e r ’s c o m p la in t. C f . V on H of f bu rg v. A l ex an der , 615 F . 2d 633, 639 ( 5th C i r . 1980) ( e xpl a i ni ng tha ti f the out c om e of

a dm i ni s tr a t i ve pr oc e e di ngs i s a dve r s e t o the pl a i nt i f f , “ the c our tw i l l a tl e a s tha ve a de f i ni t i ve i nt e rpr e t a t i on of

the r e gul a t i on a nd a n e xpl i c a t i on of the r e l e va ntf

a c t s f r om the hi gh es tadm i ni stra t i ve bo dy” i n an ent i ty’ s i nt ernal appel l at e s ys t em ). T he di stri ct 3 c our tpr ope r l y di s m i s s e d H i c ks ’ s pe t i t i on f orl a c k of

s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on. AF F I RME D.