* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** Honorable John W. Lungstrum, District Judge, UnitedStates District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 12/16/96 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
JOHN G. WESTINE, JR.,

Petitioner-Appellant,
v. BUREAU OF PRISONS; W. A. PERRILL, Warden, FCI Englewood,

Respondents-Appellees. Nos. 95-1362 & 96-1019 (D.C. Nos. 95-M-1846 & 95-S-2445) (D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BALDOCK and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges, and LUN GSTRUM, ** District Judge.-2-

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff John G. Westine, Jr. appeals from orders of the district court dismissing his petitions for relief filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We affirm. Westine filed two consecutive § 2241 petitions. In both, he raised the same issues regarding his placement in administrative de tention. The district court dismissed both petitions on the grounds Westine hadfailed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The Bureau of Prisons has established a grievance p rocedure for inmates to follow by which they may seek formal review of issu es relating to their confinement. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.10-542.19. We have held it neces sary that inmates follow the grievance procedure prior to fil ing suit in federal court in order to possibly resolve issues, reduce court intrusion into prison administrations, and provide some fact-finding so t hat if the matter reaches the court system, the court will have a starting place for understanding and resolving the matter. See Brice v. Day , 604 F.2d 664, 666-67 (10th Cir. 1979), abrogated on other grounds byMcCarthy v. Madigan , 503 U.S. 140 (1992). This requirement may be waived if the inmate can show th at requiring exhaustion-3-

would prejudice his claim, the remedy is inadequate , or the administrative body is biased. See McCarthy , 503 U.S. at 146-48.

No. 95-1362 Westine filed this petition five days after he had been placed in detention. Clearly, he had not attempted to exhaust the Bureau of Prisons grievance procedure before filing this petition. Westine mad e no showing as to why he should be excused from following the established pr ocedures. The district court correctly dismissed this petition.

No. 96-1019 After the district court entered judgment in No. 95 -1362, Westine filed another petition for § 2241 relief. In this petiti on, Westine raised the same grounds he raised in the prior petition; however, h e asserted he had exhausted his administrative remedies. The exhibits Westine atta ched to his petition showed he had filed a request for administrative relief regar ding the fact that his legal mail was being opened by prison authorities, some of his legal mail was missing, and he was being denied “legal phone calls” since he ha d been placed in detention. The district court again dismissed the action becau se Westine had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding the i ssue raised in his petition. We-4-

agree that Westine again failed to exhaust his admi nistrative remedies. The judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court Mary Beck Briscoe Circuit Judge