FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JANUARY 8, 2004 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK [PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH

CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 03-14118 Non-Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 02-03131-CV-WBH-1 FRANK A. SKINNER, Petitioner-Appe llant,
versus RON WILEY

, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

__________________________ Appeal from t

he United States D

istrict Court for t

he Northern Distric

t of Georgia

_________________________ (Ja nuary 8, 2004
Before TJOFL

AT, DUBIN

A and MARCUS,

Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Appellant Frank A. Skinner filed the instant petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming

that federal off

icials (1) planted n

arcotics in his prison

locker; (2)2

illegally proce ssed the incident report while he rem ained in segregation;

and (3) pretended to give evidence to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to conduct an investigation. Skinner also alleged that his grievances were rejected and the staff tampered with his mail. The district court dismissed Skinner’ s § 2241 petition for, among other things, failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required under § 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). On appeal, S kinner argues that the distr

ict court erred in determining tha t he had not exhausted hi s administrative remedies. Skin ner also argues the merits of his petition. We review de novo the district court’s d enial of habeas relief u nder § 2241. Cook v. Wiley , 208 F.3d 1314, 131 7 (11th Cir. 2000). After reviewin

g the record, we

conclude that the dist

rict court did not er

r in determining tha

t Skinner failed to e

xhaust his adminis

trative reme

dies, although it did err in determining that the PLRA applied to Skinner’s habeas petition. We, like several other circuits, have held that the PLRA does not apply to habeas petitions because (1 ) habeas petitions ar e not traditional civi

l actions; (2) Congre ss designed the PLRA

to reduce frivolous c

ivil actions from

prisoners; and (3) t

he Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ( AEDPA), which affects habeas petitions and motion s to vacate, was enacted t wo days after the PLRA. See Anderson v. Singleta

ry , 111 F.3d 801, 803-0 5 (11th Cir. 1997) (h olding that the3

PLRA’s filing

fee provisions do not a

pply in §§ 2254 and 2255 petitions); see also Carmona v. United

States Bureau of Pris

ons , 243 F.3d 629, 634 (2 d Cir. 2001) (stating that the PL

RA does not apply

to § 2241 petitions); Walker v. O’Brien , 216 F.3d 626, 633-34, 636 -37 (7th Cir. 2000) ( holding that the PLRA

does not apply to § 2241 and § 2254 petitions ); Blair-Bey v. Quick

, 151 F.3d 1036, 1040-42 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (holding that the PLRA filing fee provisions do not apply to habeas petitions); Davis v. Fechtel , 150 F.3d 486, 490 (5 th Cir. 1998) (holdin g that the PLRA does not apply

to § 2241 petitions); McIntosh v. Unite d States Parole Comm’n , 115 F.3d 809, 812 (1 0th Cir. 1997) (same). We have not c onclusiv ely determined whether, de spite the PLRA’s inapplicability t

o habeas petitions, a

prisoner is still re

quired to exhaust his administrative remedies in al l habeas cases. See Gonzalez v. United States , 959 F.2d 211, 212 (11th Cir. 1992) (holding that prisoner who was denied parole was required to exhaust a

dministrative r

emedies prior

to filing § 2241 petition b ecause “[e]xhausti

on of administra

tive remedies

is jurisdictional”

); see also Irwin v. Hawk, 40 F.3d 347, 349 n. 2 (11th Cir. 1994) (d etailing the Bureau

of Prisons’ administrative

remedy pr

ocedures and requir

ing a prisoner to exha

ust his claim administratively when seeking injunctive relief). Our sister circuits, however, have consistently held that prisoners must exhaust administrative remedies before4

habeas relief can be gran ted. Carmona , 243 F.3d at 630, 63 2, 634 (addressing § 2241 petition); Fuller v. Rich , 11 F.3d 61, 62 (5th Cir. 1994) (addre ssing § 2241 petition); Little v. Hopkins , 638 F.2d 953, 953-5 4 (6th Cir. 1981) (discussing habeas petitions in gen

eral); United States ex rel . Sanders v. Arnold

, 535 F.2d 848, 850-51 (3rd Cir. 1976

) (same); Willis v. Cicc

one , 506 F.2d 1011, 1014- 15, n.3 (8th Cir. 1974) (same). We agree with the reasoning of our sister circuits and hold that prisoners seeking hab eas relief, incl uding relief pursuant

to § 2241, are subje

ct to administrative exhaus tion requirements. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that Skinner was required to exh

aust his administr

ative remedie s and failed to do so. Because his failure to exhaus

t administrativ

e remedies r

esolves this appeal,

we decline to discuss the mer

its of Skinner’s pe

tition. Accordingl

y, we affir

m the judgm

ent of dismissal. AFFIRMED.