FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T SEP 09, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 28 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 0- cv -0 00 01 -LGW -J EG ERIC WATKINS, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us WARDEN ANTH ONY HAYN ES, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t forth e So ut he rn Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 9, 2 01 1) Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Eric W at ki ns , a fed eral pri so ne r, ap pe al s pr o s e fro m th e d is m is sa l o f hi s 2 8 U.S.C. § 2 24 1 p et it io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us . He clai m s t ha t t he di st ric tco ur t erredin fin di ng th athi s p et it io n h adbe enren de redm oo t b y hi s re le as e fro m pr is on . W ard en Ant ho ny Hay ne s re sp on ds th at , eve n i f th e p et it io n was no t m oo t, W at ki ns fai le d t o e xh au sthi s ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s as req ui red . For t he reas on s
se t fo rth be lo w, we affi rm . I. W at ki ns was i nc arce rat edat t he Fed eral Tran sf er Ce nt er (“ FTC Ok la ho m a”) fro m Jan ua ry 4 t o J anua ry

16 , 20 08 . W at ki ns was c ha rg edon Jan ua ry 15 , 20 08 , wit h “ Ass au lton Sta ff.” A Uni t Di sc ip li ne Co m m it te e h eari ng was h el d o n Ja nu ary 23 , and th e Dis ci pl in ary Heari ng Offic er (“ DHO”) he lda he ari ng on Ja nu ary 31 . W at ki ns rece iv eda co py of th e DHO rep or t t ha t d ay . He fil edan ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed y

at t he reg io na l l ev el on Marc h 2 6, 2 00 8, wh en he ap pe al ed th e DHO’ s fi nd in gs to th e Nor th Cen tra l Re gi on al Offic e (“ NCRO”) . The NCRO reject edhi s cl ai m

on gro un ds th at(1) he di d n ot us e th e p ro pe r fo rm , (2) he im pr op erl y in cl ud edm

ul ti pl e co nt in ua ti on pa ge s, an d (3 ) th e ap pe al was u nt im el y . He was to ldto res ub m ithi s ap pe al in th e p ro pe r fo rm wit hi n t en da y s o f th e Ma rch 28 reject io n n ot ic e, bu t h e d idno t re fil e u nt il Apri l 1 6, 2 00 8. On Apri l 2 8, h is refi le d app eal was re

jecte d o n g ro un ds th at(1) itwas u nt im el y an d (2 ) it di d n ot in cl ud e th e req ui redst aff v eri fic at io n t ha t Watk in s was no t at fau ltforth e d el ay . He was in fo rm edof h is rig htto fil e a n at io na l ap pe al wit h t he Bu reau of P ris on s
2(“ BOP”) Cen tra l Offi ce. He d idno t fi le a na ti on al ap pe al at t ha t t im e.

On Au gu st 7, 2 00 8, Watk in s was tra ns ferr edto FCI Be au m on t. Whil e th ere, W at ki ns fil edan in qu iry with FCI Be au m on t s ta ff i nt o t he st atus of h is ori gi na l ap pe al . On Apr il 23 , 20 09 , th e st aff a t FC I Bea um on t re jecte d t hi s i nq ui ry

as
un ti m el y . On Ma y

26 , 20 09 , W at ki ns ag ai n re fil edhi s re gi on al ap pe al , bu t d idso th is ti m e wit h t he So ut h C en tra l Re gi on al Offic e (“ SCRO” ) rat he r th anth e NCRO. The SCRO re

jecte d t he ap pe al as u nt im el y on Ju ne 15 , and a co py of th e reject io n
no ti ce was pro vi de d t o Watk in s o n J un e 2 3. On Ju ne 24 , 20 09 , W at ki ns fil edhi s
na ti on al ap pe al wit h t he BOP Cen tra l Offi ce. The Cen tra l Offi ce re jecte d t he ap pe al on Ju ly 22 o n t he gro un d t ha t t he NCRO h adco rrec tl y fou nd th e reg io na l ap pe al to be un ti m el y . On J an ua ry

4, 2 01 0, Watk in s fi le d i n t he di st ric t co ur t a pr o s e § 2 24 1 habe as co rp us pe ti ti on . He ass ert edth atth e DHO hadcau se d s ev eral vi ol at io ns of hi s ri gh t t o d ue pro ces s i n t he co ur se of f in di ng erro ne ou sl y

th athe ha d a ss au lt ed
an FTC Okl ah om a st aff m em be r. The DHO sa nc ti on edhi m by dis al lo win g 2 7 1 da y s o f go od -co nd uc t t im e, 30 da y s o f no n- ve st edgo od -co nd uc t t im e, an d v ari ou s
In particula

r, Watkins claimed that the DHO violated his rig ht to due proce ss by (1) failing 1 to consider that he was not timely serve d with a copy of the disciplinary repor t, (2) failing to consider that the hea

ringwas unti mely , (3) failing to provide him with a copy of the witness stateme nt that would be used ag ainst him and to consider his written defe nse to the char g es, (4) failing to consider that he was not serve d with any rules and regulations of FTC Oklahoma, and (5) failing to consider another of his written cla ims and supporting f acts. 3pr iv il eg es . He ask edth e d is tri ctco urt t o re st or e al l o f hi s l os t g oo d- co nd uc t t im e.

The ward en res po nd edth atW at ki ns ha d n ot ex haus te d h is ad m in is tra ti ve
rem ed ie s b ecau se he ha d n ev er p ro pe rly fil eda ti m el y ap pe al or s ou gh t l eav e to fil e h is ap pe al s o ut of t im e. The m ag is tra te jud ge fou nd th atth e ward en was
co rrec t, an d h e rec omm en de d d is m is si ng th e § 22 41 pe ti ti on forfai lu re t o e xh au st ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s. In Ju ne 20 10 , th e ward en fil eda su pp le m en ta l re sp on se in di cat in g t ha t Watk in s re cen tl y ha d b een rel eas edfro m

pri so n a nd arg ui ng th at , as
a co ns eque nc e, th e h ab eas pe ti ti on was m oo t. The di st ric t co ur t fo un d t ha t Watk in s’s p et it io n s ou gh t ea rly relea se fro m BOP cu st od y

th ro ug h t he rev ers al of t he go od -ti m e-cr ed itreduc ti on s. As W at ki ns ha d b een rel eas ed , th e co urt fo un d t ha t i t co ul d n ot pro vi de hi m wit h a ny reli ef,
an d t ha t i t l ack edsubjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on to en te r on ly a decl arat ory jud gm en t of a du e-p ro ces s v io la ti on . Accor di ng ly, th e co ur t d is m is se d t he pe ti ti on wit ho ut ad op ti ng th e m ag is tra te ’s rep or t. II. Whe th er t he di st ric t co ur t h as juri sd ic ti on ov er a m at te r is a qu es ti on of l aw
su bjec t t o p le na ry

rev ie w. Bal ti n v . Ala ro n T ra di ng Co rp . , 12 8 F .3d14 66 , 14 68 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7)

. If a p et it io ne r’s se nt en ce ex pi res whi le hi s h ab eas pe ti ti on is awai ti ng
4ad

jud ic at io n, s om e co ll at eral co ns eq ue nc e m us t b e p res en t i n o rd er t o s at is fy th e
cas e-o r-co nt ro ve rs y

req ui rem en t. Ca ra

fa s v. La Val le e , 39 1 U.S. 2 34 , 23 7- 38 , 88 S.Ct . 15 56 , 15 59 , 20 L.Ed.2d55 4 (1 96 8) . In Dawso n v . Sco tt , 50 F.3d 88 4, 8 86 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 5) , a fed eral pri so ne r fi le d a 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 1 p et it io n s eek in g c red it ag ai ns t h is sen te nc e fo r th e ti m e h e sp en t i n h al fway ho us es an d s afe h ou se s. Whi le hi s ap pe al of t he di sm is sa l o f hi s p et it io n was pe nd in g, h e was rel eas ed fro m fed eral cu st od y . Id

. at 8 86 n.2 . W e h el d t ha t h is ap pe al was n ot m oo t, as Dawso n was st il l s erv in g ape rio d o f su pe rv is edrel eas e an d s uc ces s o n app eal
co ul d a ffec t t he supe rv is ed -rel eas e p or ti on of h is sen te nc e. Id

. In Uni te d S ta te s v. J

oh ns on , 52 9 U.S. 5 3, 5 4, 1 20 S.Ct . 11 14 , 11 16 , 14 6 L.Ed.2 d 3 9 (2 00 0) , th e Supr em e Co urt ad dr es se d t he qu es ti on of wh et he r ex ces s ti m e se rv edin pri so n s ho ul d b e cre di te d a ga in st th e d efen da nt ’s term of s up erv is ed rel eas e. The C ou rt h el d t ha t, b as edon th e te xt of 1 8 U.S.C. § 36 24 (e), s uc h e xc es s ti m e is no t au to m at ic al ly credi te d a ga in stth e te rm of s up erv is edrel eas e, bu t t ha t

“ eq ui tabl e co ns id erat io ns of g reatweig ht ex is t wh en anin di vi du al is in carc erat ed be y on d t he pro pe r ex pi rat io n o f hi s p ris on term .” Id

. at 5 7- 60 , 12 0 S .Ct. at 11 17

- 19 . Thu s, i n s uc h a cir cu m st an ce, d is tri ctco ur ts m ay ex erci se th ei r di sc ret io n
un de r 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 3( e) t o re du ce o r te rm in at e th e te rm of s up erv is edrel eas e. Id

. at 6 0, 1 20 S.Ct . at 1 11 9. Th e Jo hn so n ho ld in g d idno t af fect ou r m oo tn es s
5ho ld in g i n Dawso n , as Dawso n hi ng edup on th e li be rty rest ric ti on s i m po se d b y
su pe rv is edrel eas e an d t he po ss ib il it y th atsu cces s o n app eal co ul d a lt er t he ter m of
su pe rv is edrel eas e, no t o n t he qu es ti on of wh ethe r su ch an alt erat io n wo ul d b e st atut or il y

m an da te d. Here, as in Dawso n , W at ki ns wa s r e le as ed fro m pr is on an d be ga n a te rm of
su pe rv is ed rel eas e whi le hi s habe as pr oc eed in gs were pe nd in g. Alt ho ug h th e di st ric t
co ur t wou ld ha ve be en un ab le to reduc e W at ki ns ’s pr is on te rm up on fin di ng th at th e di sc ip li na ry pr oc eed in gs were du e to be ov erturne d, it co ul d ha ve eq ui tabl y reduc ed W at ki ns ’s term of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Se e Jo hn so n , 52 9 U.S. at 57 -6 0, 1 20 S.Ct . at 11 17 -1 9. As su cces s fo r W at ki ns co ul d h av e al te redth e su pe rv is edrel eas e p or ti on of hi s s en te nc e, hi s § 224 1 pet it io n was n ot m oo t. Se e Dawso n , 50 F.3d at 8 86 n.2
. III. Alt ho ug h th e ex ha us ti on req ui rem en t of th e Pri so n Lit i g a t i on Refo rm Act (“ PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 19 97 e(a) , do es no t ap pl y to habe as pe ti t io ns , § 22 41 pe ti ti on ers ne ve rth el es s are req ui red to ex ha us t th ei r ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s be fo re habe as r e l ie f can be gr an te d. Skin ne r v. W il ey , 35 5 F.3 d 12 93 , 12 94 -9 5 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 04 ). The BOP’s Adm in is tra ti ve Rem edy Pro gr am req ui res th e pr is on er to su bm it
a fo rm al writ te n Adm in is tra ti ve Rem ed y Req ue st wit hi n “ 20 cal en da r da y s fo ll owi ng th e da te on whi ch th e ba si s fo r th e Req ue st oc cu rred ” or wit hi n th e ti m e fram e of an y
6ex te ns io n th at is al lo wed

. 28 C.F.R. § 54 2.1 4( a)-( b)

. Whe re th e p r i s o n e r se ek s to

ap pe al a D H O fin di ng , th e fo rm al Req ue st is to be su bm it te d di rect ly to th e ap pr op ria te reg io na l of

fic e. § 54 2.1 4( d) (2 ). “ An in m at e who is no t sa ti sf ie d wit h th e Reg io na l Dire ct or ’s res po n s e may su bm it an App eal

. . . to th e Gen eral Co un se l wit hi n 3 0 c al en da r da y s of th e da te th e Reg io na l Dire ct or si gn ed th e res po ns e.” § 54 2.1 5( a). The ti m e li m it s m ay be ex te nd ed up on a sh owi ng of a va li d reas on fo r th e de la y . Id

. “ App eal to th e Gen eral Co un se l is th e fin al ad m in is tra ti ve ap pe al .” Id

. The DHO en te red th e fin di ng ag ai ns t W at ki ns on Ja nu ary 31 , 20 08
. Acco rd in gl y , W at ki ns was req ui red to su bm it hi s Adm in is tra ti ve Rem ed y Req ue st to th e NCRO b y

Feb ru ary 20 , 20 08 , bu t h e d idno t d o s o. Se e § 5 42 .14 (a), (d )(2 ). He fil ed hi s fir st Req ue st on Mar ch 26 , 20 08 , ap pr ox im at el y 34 da y s pa st th e de ad li ne . On Mar ch 28 , 20 08 , t he NCRO reject ed hi s Reque st an d in fo rm ed hi m th at an
ex te ns io n co ul d be av ai labl e if he were to pr ov id e do cu m en ta ti on th at th e de la y was
no t hi s fau lt

. Whe n he refi le d on Apr il 16 , 20 08 , ho wev er, he di d no t in cl ud e an y do cu m en ta ti on reg ard in g th e cau se of th e de la y . Acco rd in gl y , th e R e q u es t was reject ed ag ai n as un ti m el y . Fu rth erm or e, th e se co nd reject io n was is su ed on Apr il 28 , 20 08 , bu t W at ki ns di d no t fil e hi s na ti on al ap pe al un ti l Ju ne 24 , 20 09 , m or e th an on e y ear a fte r th e fi li ng de ad li ne in § 5 42 .15 (a). As W at ki ns ne ve r ti m el y fil ed an Adm i n i s t r at iv e Rem edy Req ue st , he fai le d
7to ex ha us t hi s ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s. Se e § 54 2.1 4. Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t co ur t

was un ab le to gr an t hi m habe as rel ie f, an d th e pe ti ti on was du e to be di sm is se d. Se e 2 Skin ne r , 35 5 F .3dat 1 29 5. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco ur t. AFFIRMED.

We may aff

irm on any adequa

te g rounds that find support in the rec ord. Smith v. Allen , 502 2 F.3d 1255, 1265 ( 11th Cir. 2007). 8