JEFFREY 

vs. 

UNITED 

.-n_ 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC~ COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS \ /11..\G 1 Q 2022 

FORT WORTH DIVISION \ cu:iiv u :; i,crucr coUitT 

I 

\,_,-~,M-- r; ~~~::·.:=~jfrii~~(X~~:-_.,~.-:~=:=·0•-~'""'"• 

ALAN BREVICK, § 

§ 

Applicant,' § 

§ 

§ NO. 4:22-CV-524-A 

§ 

STATES OF AMERICA, § 

§ 

Respondent. § 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

Came on for consideration the application of Jeffrey Alan 

Brevick under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for writ of habeas corpus. The 

court, having considered the application, the government's 

response, the reply, the record, and applicable authorities, 

finds that the application must be dismissed as unexhausted. 

I. 

Background 

Applicant is serving a sentence of 262 months for 

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 50 

grams of pure methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§ 84l(a) (1) & (b) (1) (A). United States v. Brevick, No. 4:05-CR195-A. He is serving his custodial sentence in home confinement, 

'The document filed by applicant reflects that it is a "petition" and that he is a "petitioner." However, the 

statute itself, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, refers to "application" as being the proper nomenclature. 

Case 4:22-cv-00524-A Document 10 Filed 08/10/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID 53
via designation to the Bureau of Prisons' Dallas Community 

Corrections/Residential Reentry Management Center. Doc.' 8 at 

App. 1-2. 

II. 

Ground of the Motion 

Applicant urges that the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") has not 

correctly applied credits he has earned pursuant to the First 

Step Act to reduce his sentence. He asks the court to direct the 

BOP to correctly calculate his time and release him accordingly. 

Doc. 1 at 2-3. 

III. 

Exhaustion of Remedies 

A federal prisoner seeking relief under§ 2241 must first 

exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking judicial 

review. Fuller v. Rich, 11 F.3d 61, 62 (5th Cir. 1994); Rourke 

v. Thompson, 11 F.3d 47, 49 (5th Cir. 1993). Exceptions to the 

exhaustion requirement apply only in extraordinary cases where 

administrative remedies are unavailable or wholly inappropriate 

to the relief sought, or the attempt to exhaust would be 

patently futile. Fuller, 11 F.3d at 62. This is not such a case. 

"Federal courts do not have jurisdiction over grievances related 

2 The "Doc. "reference is to the number of the item on the docket in this action. 

2 

Case 4:22-cv-00524-A Document 10 Filed 08/10/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID 54
to computation of sentences and sentencing credit until 

exhaustion of administrative review by the [BOP]." United States 

v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 335-36 (1992); United States v. 

Dowling, 962 F.2d 390, 393 (5th Cir. 1992). That applicant is no 

longer confined in a correctional facility does not excuse his 

obligation to exhaust remedies. 28 C.F.R. § 542.l0(b); Kelley v. 

United States, No. CV 20-0132, 2020 WL 9077512, at *1 (E.D. La. 

Apr. 2 8, 2 02 0) . 

The BOP operates a three-step Administrative Remedy 

Program. 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.10-542.19. The initial step for an 

inmate in community custody is to submit a written 

administrative remedy request form (BP-9) to the Community 

Corrections Manager's Office within 20 calendar days following 

the date on which the basis for the request occurred. 28 C.F.R. 

§ 542.14(a). Such request may be mailed. 28 C.F.R. 

§ 54 2 . 14 ( C) ( 4) . 

If the inmate is not satisfied with the response, he may 

submit an appeal (BP-10) to the Regional director. 28 C.F.R. 

§ 542.lS(a). And, if not satisfied with·that response, the 

inmate may appeal to the Office of General Counsel via a Central 

Office administrative remedy appeal form (BP-11). 28 C.F.R. 

§ 542. 15 (a) . 

3 

Case 4:22-cv-00524-A Document 10 Filed 08/10/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID 55
IV. 

Analysis 

Administrative remedies are not exhausted until the 

inmate's claim has been filed at all levels and denied at all 

levels. Wood v. Carr, No. 4:20-CV-1365-P, 2021 WL 2207202, at *3 

(N.D. Tex. June l, 2021) (citing Rourke, 11 F.3d at 49). 

Substantial compliance is not enough. Flores v. Lappin, 580 F. 

App'x 248, 249 (5th Cir. 2014). Applicant has not made any 

attempt to exhaust his remedies. His argument that he is not 

required to exhaust his remedies is not well taken. The case he 

relies upon, Q.F. v. Daniel, 768 F. App'x 935, 938 (11th Cir. 

2019), is inapposite as it concerns the requirements of the 

Prison Litigation Reform Act. Moreover, authorities from other 

circuits are not binding here. The application must be dismissed 

as unexhausted. 

Finally, as respondent notes, it does not appear that 

applicant could prevail in any event. Doc. 7 at 6-7. His request 

for relief is premature. See Sample v. Morrison, 406 F.3d 310, 

311-12 (5th Cir. 2005); Roberts v. Smith, 195 F. App'x 244, 245 

(5th Cir. 2006). And, contrary to applicant's argument, even the 

document he relies on, Government's Supplemental Response, Doc. 

9 at 8, reflects that the maximum credit that can be earned is 

4 

Case 4:22-cv-00524-A Document 10 Filed 08/10/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID 56
fifteen days for every thirty days of participation in 

programming. 

V. 

Order 

For the reasons discussed herein, 

The court ORDERS that the application be, and is hereby, 

dismissed as unexhausted. 

SIGNED August 10, 2022. 

5 

Case 4:22-cv-00524-A Document 10 Filed 08/10/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID 57