UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM C. DAVIS,

Petitioner, 

v.

WARDEN ZYCH,

Respondent. 

/

Case Number: 2:08-CV-13962

HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI

OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Petitioner William C. Davis, a federal inmate incarcerated at the Federal Correctional

Institution in Milan, Michigan, has filed a pro se habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2241. Because Petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies, the Court shall dismiss

the petition without prejudice. 

I.

Upon the filing of a habeas corpus petition, the Court must promptly examine the petition

to determine “if it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that

the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 cases. If the Court

determines that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Court shall summarily dismiss the

petition. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994) (“Federal courts are authorized to

dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face”). The Rules

Governing Section 2254 cases may be applied at the discretion of the district court judge to

petitions filed under § 2241. See Rule 1(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The claims

presented in the habeas petition are unexhausted and therefore do not present grounds upon
2

which this Court may grant habeas relief at this time. Accordingly, the petition will be dismissed

without prejudice. 

II.

Petitioner is serving a 188-month sentence, imposed by the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Ohio, for several bank and wire fraud convictions. In his petition,

Petitioner challenges the loss of thirteen days good time credit imposed as a sanction after he

was found guilty of lying or providing a false statement to a staff member. 

According to Petitioner, on May 22, 2008, he was written an incident report for a

violation of the code requiring inmates to maintain their cells in accordance with posted

standards because his coat was hanging on his bed. On May 27, 2008, he was found guilty of the

violation. 

On May 28, 2008, Petitioner appealed the finding of guilt by submitted a “BP-81⁄2” form

to his unit team supervisor. In support of his appeal, Petitioner submitted a letter, purportedly

signed by another inmate, James Way, who worked in the facility’s laundry services, stating that

Petitioner’s coat was at the facility laundry services at the time it was supposedly hanging on his

bed. 

On May 30, 2008, Petitioner was written another incident report for violating Code 314,

which prohibits forgery or unauthorized reproduction of any document. The incident report

alleged that Petitioner had forged the signature of James Way. 

On June 3, 2008, a Unit Discipline Committee hearing was conducted. The incident

report was referred to the Discipline Hearing Officer (DHO) with the recommendation that the

DHO disallow thirteen days good conduct time. 
3

The DHO conducted a hearing on June 22, 2008. The DHO found Petitioner guilty of a

Code 313 violation (lying or providing a false statement to a staff member) and sanctioned

Petitioner to thirteen days loss of good conduct time and six months of telephone restrictions. 

Petitioner then filed the pending petition for a writ of habeas corpus, raising the

following claims:

I. The incident report issued May 30, 2008, must be immediately expunged where

(a) the incident report was written for violation of Code 314, (b) at the DHO

hearing the incident report was changed to Code 313 violation, (c) prisoner was

not given 24 hour notice of Code 313 violation, and (d) the DHO failed to afford

prisoner the minimum procedural due process as set forth in Wolff v. McDonnell,

418 U.S. 539 (1974).

II. The incident report issued May 30, 2008, must be immediately expunged where

the DHO has failed to afford the prisoner the minimum procedural due process

requirements as set forth in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-65 (1974)

through his failure to provide a written statement of the evidence relied upon and

the reasons for the disciplinary actions taken.

III.

A federal habeas corpus petitioner must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking

habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Little v. Hopkins, 638 F.2d 953, 954 (6th Cir.

1981). See also Watts v. Bogan, 1995 WL 108993, *1 (6th Cir. March 14, 1995). The petitioner

bears the burden of establishing exhaustion. Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1994);

Caver v. Straub, 349 F.3d 340, 345 (6th Cir.2003).

In the instant case, Petitioner acknowledges that he has failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies. An administrative remedy is available for Petitioner to challenge the

revocation of good-time credits under 28 C.F.R. § 542.10-542.16. See Alton v. Bogan, 1995 WL

364184 (6th Cir. June 16, 1995). A prisoner may submit a complaint to institutional staff. If the

problem is not resolved, 28 C.F.R. § 542.13(a) & (b) allows a prisoner to file a formal request for
4

administrative remedy with the warden of the prison. Thereafter, a prisoner may file an appeal

to the Regional Director and General Counsel in the central office. 28 C.F.R. § 542.14.

Petitioner argues that he may not exhaust his administrative remedies because he never

received a written report of the DHO’s decision. The regulations governing an administrative 

challenge to the revocation of good-time credits do not require that a prisoner provide a copy of

the DHO’s decision when filing a complaint or appeal. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.10-542.16. 

Therefore, the Court finds that the alleged failure to provide Petitioner with a copy of the

decision does not render the administrative remedies unavailable to Petitioner. 

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus

is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

s/Marianne O. Battani 

MARIANNE O. BATTANI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: October 7, 2008

Certificate of service

I certify that on the above date a copy of this Opinion and Order was served upon

all parties of record.

s/Bernadette M. Thebolt

Case Manager