UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ WILLIAM STAPLES, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. CLAUDE MAYE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. No. 16-3135 (D.C. No. 5:15-CV-03009-KHV) (D. Kan.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before HARTZ , MURPHY , and PHILLIPS , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ William Staples appeals the di strict court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U. S.C. § 2241. We affirm.
I Staples challenges four Discipline Hear ing Officer (“DHO”) incident reports leading to loss of Good Conduct Time (“GC T”). Staples has already challenged two of these incident reports in a previous § 2241 filing. We upheld the dismissal of that challenge. Staples v. Chester , 370 F. App’x 925, 926 (10t h Cir. 2010) (unpublished),

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### September 6, 2017
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 cert. denied , 562 U.S. 919 (2010). The district court properly dismissed Staples’s petition concerning those two earlier claims as a successive action. 1 The two other incident reports occurred after we dismi ssed Staples’s first § 2241 petition, so we review them here. But Staple s’s claims as to those inci dent reports suffer from the same defects as his claims on the first two incidents.
II We review de novo the district court’ s dismissal of a § 2241 habeas petition. Broomes v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 1251, 1255 (10th Cir. 2004). Before filing a § 2241 petition, federal prisoners must exhaust their ad ministrative remedies. Garza v.
Davis , 596 F.3d 1198, 1203 (10th Ci r. 2010). To exhaust, in mates must first attempt to resolve their compla ints informally, and if that fail s, they must “submit a formal request for an administrativ e remedy to the institution.” Id. at 1204. If that attempt also fails, they may file a regiona l appeal, and then a national appeal. See id. (citing 28 C.F.R. § 542.15(a)). But inmates need not exhaust their administrative remedies if they can show that exhaus tion would have been futile. Id. at 1203. Inmates must be affo rded due process under Wolff v. McDonnell , 418 U.S. 539 (1974). Wolff created standards that inmate-san ction proceedings must follow to afford inmates due process. First, at le ast twenty-four hours be fore the disciplinary proceeding, inmates must re ceive written notice inform ing them of the charges against them to give them sufficient time to prepare a defense. Wolff , 418 U.S. at 564.

1 That case dealt with Incident Report Nos. 1661747 (havi ng an unauthorized item) and 1664517 (fighting).3 Second, the proceeding’s fact finder must provide a written statement of the evidence that the factfinder is relying on and the r easons for the disciplinary action, because “[w]ithout written records, the inmate wi ll be at a severe disadvantage in propounding his own cause to or defending himself from others.” Id. at 564–65. Third, inmates “should be allowed to call witnesses and pr esent documentary evidence in [their] defense when permitting [them] to do so will not be unduly hazardous to institutional safe ty or correctional goals.” Id. at 566. Additionally, “some evidence” must suppor t disciplinary action. Superintendent v. Hill , 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985).
III Here, the district court concluded th at Staples had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on Incident Repor t No. 2513440, but not on Incident Report No. 2576551. But the distri ct court also concluded th at during hearings on both Incident Reports, Staples received the due process protections guaranteed by Wolff

. So it denied him relief on both claims. We an alyze each of these claims in turn, but first we explain the Federal Bureau of Pr ison’s (“BOP”) inmate-d iscipline program. When the BOP imposes sanctions on a pr isoner, the prisoner must first attempt to resolve their concerns informally. 28 C.F.R. § 542.13 . If that fails, the prisoner must submit an administrative-remedy reque st to the prison wa rden, then to the Regional Director of the BOP, and finally to the BOP General Co unsel at the Central Office. Id. §§ 542.14, 542.15. Prisone rs may appeal a DHO’s fi ndings directly to the Regional Director. Id. § 542.14(d)(2).4 A First, Incident Report No . 2513440 charged Staples with attempting to give or receive money for a prohibite d purpose (a violation of C ode 217A) because he had written a letter asking a person to send $550 to another inmate so that Staples could buy commissary items. Staples received th e report the same day the incident occurred, November 7, 2013. Staples admitted he had sent the lette r, and claimed that he needed the money to buy a typewriter ribbon. On November 14, 2013, Staples formally pleaded guilty in a Unit Discipline Committe e (“UDC”) hearing. That same day, the UDC recommended the matter to the DHO and gave Staples a Notice of Discipline Hearing, set for December 5, 2013. Staples appeared and again explained his letter, but he declined to call witnesses or have a staf f member assist him. After finding Staples guilty, the DHO disallowed 14 days of GCT and imposed 90 days’ loss of privileges. Staples didn’t receive a copy of the DHO’s report from the December hearing until June 11, 2014. But on Ma y 27, 2014, knowing he had a limited time in which to file an appeal, Staples a ppealed to the DHO North Cent ral Regional Office (the “Regional Office”). According to Staples, he waited five months before appealing because he had never received his writte n report of the DHO’s finding, a necessary attachment for his appeal. T hough Staples identified the da te and charged infractions that were the subject of his appeal, the Regional Office rejected the appeal as untimely and as incomplete because he had failed to attach th e written DHO report.5 So, on June 30, 2014, Staples appealed that rejection to the BOP Central Office. On August 20, 2014, the Central Of fice agreed with th e Regional Office’s rationales for rejecting Stap les’s appeal. It told St aples to “OBTAIN A STAFF MEMO STATING THE REASON FOR YOUR UNTIMELINESS AND RESUBMIT YOUR APPEAL TO THE REGION.” R. vol. 1 at 120. Staples apparently did not do so, claiming that by the time he received the Central O ffice’s rejection, he was no longer incarcerated at the prison where the alleged offense had occurred. R. vol. 1 at 260. Staples claimed that it would have been “next to impossi ble” to obtain a staff memo explaining his untimeliness, and cl aimed that he atte mpted to communicate with his unit team about this request but was “told to leave th e office with [his] condescending attitude.” Id. The district court concluded that Staples had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies becaus e he had failed to resubmit his appeal with a statement from staff in his new region of incarceration. R. vol. 1 at 347. Noting that Staples “apparently made no effort to comply,” th e court concluded that he had “failed to pursue available remedies.” Id. Addressing the DHO’s failure to provide Staples with a timely written report of it s findings, the district court acknowledged that this failure “greatly complicated the administrative appeal proces s,” but concluded that it didn’t violate Wolff ’s due-process requirements, because Staples eventually received the report. Id.6 We agree with the district court, al though the conduct of the officials that Staples worked with wa s indeed problematic. 2 Though Staples did ultimately receive his written report, the DHO’s delay may have caused Staple s’s delay in appealing the DHO’s findings. Still, instead of submitting hi s appeal in the requ ired twenty days, Staples waited five months. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.15(a). He could have simply done what he did—filed his appeal without the written report—within the time limit, as opposed to waiting. Had he done so, this w ould be a different case. But we generally hold prisoners responsible for knowing the rules of the a ppeals process, and we see no reason not to hold Staples responsible fo r this knowledge, esp ecially since this wasn’t his first disciplinary proceeding. Had he filed his appeal in a timely manner, it would have suffered only on e defect—failure to attach the DHO’s written report— which he could likely have overcome by explai ning in his appeal that he had not yet received the written report. So, although the DHO should have provide d Staples with its written report in time to allow him to properl y file his appeal, his failure to follow the proper regulatory procedures for appeal still precl udes his ability to con tinue this appeal here. He was not deprived of due process under Wolff , as it was his ow n untimeliness, rather than the DHO’s conduct, that precl uded him from further appealing his case.

2 Staples’s claim that his unit team re fused to help him obtain a staff memo explaining his untimeliness is especially concerning. But that information would be more central to our analysis if Staples had filed his app eal on time, even without the attached report of the DHO’s findings.7 B The next incident report, Incident Report No. 2576551, involved allegations that Staples had assaulted another prisoner. The district court concluded that the record didn’t “establish a clear failure to exhaust,” but denied Staples’s claim to relief on the grounds that Staples ha d received the due-process protections guaranteed under Wolff . We conclude that Staples failed to show that he had exhausted his administrative remedies. But even if he had not, we agree with the district court that he received due process under Wolff

. On April 27, 2014, the BOP investigated this assault. On May 1, 2014, the BOP corrected the date that the incident occurred on an amended incident report and charged Staples for that as sault. Staples denied all knowledge of the assault, prompting the UDC to hold a hearing and refer the matter to the DHO. On May 27, 2014, the DHO conducted a hearing where Staple s, with a staff repr esentative, gave a statement. At Staples’s re quest, three inmate witnesse s also submitted written statements to the DHO. The DHO found Staples guilty and disallowed fourteen days of GCT and 180 days of phone privileges. Though the DHO purportedly issued a report with this finding, the signed and delivered copy is missing. Though Staples hadn’t received a copy of the DHO report, he filed his administrative appeal with the Regional Office on June 20, 2014. The Regional Office rejected th e appeal for failure to attach the DHO report—which Staples had not received—or to otherwise id entify the hearing, as well as for having more than one continuation page. But the Re gional Office also in structed Staples to8 “consult with [his] Unit Team Mgr on where to appeal this rpt. Currently in the South Central Reg.” R. vol. 1 at 122. Staples properly resubmitted the appeal, having apparently obtained a copy of the DHO repo rt, and the Regional Office denied the appeal on October 2, 2014. The Regional Office stated that it had reviewed “all information obtained from an inve stigation of the incident.” R. vol. 1 at 307. It also informed Staples that “[y]ou submitted a copy of the DHO Report with your appeal. It was noted staff did not docum ent it was delivered to you.” Id. The Regional Office thus denied the appeal and informed Stap les that he could ap peal to the Central Office if he did so within thirty days. Staples claims that he did appeal to th e Central Office, and that he “received notice of receipt informing him that [the Ce ntral Office] had received the appeal of [this issue] and [the Central Office] will answer the appeal by due date of December 30, 2014.” R. vol. 1 at 262. But he failed to attach th at notice when he filed his habeas petition. Thus, the record contains no evidence of Staples submitting an appeal to the Central Office, and no ev idence of the Central O ffice’s response. For that reason, we conclude th at Staples has failed to esta blish that he exhausted his administrative remedies. The district court also denied Staples relief on this issue because it concluded that he had received the due process protections required by Wolff . We agree with the district court. First, Stap les received the incident re port detailing his minor assault almost a full month before his hearing. Se cond, though he didn’t receive a copy of the DHO’s report in a timely manner, he even tually received it and was therefore not9 “at a severe disadvantage” when he resubmitted his appeal. Wolff , 418 U.S. at 564–65. And Staples didn’t cont est that he had been perm itted to call witnesses and present evidence at his initial hearing. Therefore, “some evidence” supported the DHO’s decision to discipline Staple s for assaulting another inmate. Hill , 472 U.S. at 455.
III For the reasons stated above, we AFFI RM the district court’s denial of Staples’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition.

Entered for the Court
Gregory A. Phillips Circuit Judge