BLD-068 NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

___________ 

No. 18-1848 

___________ 

LENNY CAIN, 

 Appellant 

v. 

BUREAU OF PRISONS; WARDEN 

ALLENWOOD FCI; DHO BITTENBENDER 

____________________________________ 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania 

(D.C. Civil Action No. 3-17-cv-00105) 

District Judge: Honorable William J. Nealon, Junior 

____________________________________ 

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or 

Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 

January 10, 2019 

Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE and PORTER, Circuit Judges 

(Opinion filed: January 18, 2019) 

_________ 

OPINION*

_________ 

PER CURIAM 

 

*

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent. 
2 

 Lenny Cain appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the 

Middle District of Pennsylvania rejecting his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. 

 Because the District Court’s memorandum provides a detailed narrative of the 

factual and procedural background, we present a summary only. Cain is an inmate of the 

Federal Correctional Institution-Allenwood. In his habeas petition, he alleged due 

process violations arising from prison disciplinary proceedings concerning two incident 

reports. Both reports stem from the same incident but involve two different charges, two 

different hearing officers, and separate administrative appeals. The first incident report, 

dated July 26, 2015, described a fight that occurred that evening involving Cain and two 

other inmates. The report stated that one of the other inmates used a swinging style 

weapon during the fight, and the weapon (a lock inside a sock) was found in the other 

inmate’s bed after a cell search. Cain was charged with Fighting. In August 2015, Cain 

appeared before a disciplinary hearing officer (“DHO”) and was found guilty of Fighting. 

He was sanctioned to loss of forty-one days of good conduct time and loss of telephone 

and visiting privileges for eighteen months. The Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) Regional 

Office rejected Cain’s administrative appeal as untimely.1

In September 2015, following investigation of the fight, Cain received a new 

report, Incident Report No. 2761143, concerning the same July 26, 2015 fight. Cain was 

 

1

 The Regional Office directed Cain to re-file if he could document reasons for the 

untimeliness, but there is no record that Cain re-filed his appeal. 
3 

charged with Possession of a Weapon. The report stated that the Institutional Camera 

System was reviewed, and Cain was identified as using a swinging weapon--a lock in a 

sock--to strike one of the other inmates in the fight. Cain appeared at a disciplinary 

hearing, and DHO K. Bittenbender found Cain guilty of the new charge. The DHO 

sanctioned Cain to forty-one days loss of good conduct time, sixty days of disciplinary 

segregation, forfeiture of 100 days non-vested good conduct time, and eighteen months 

loss of telephone and visiting privileges. Cain appealed to the Regional Director, who 

partially granted the appeal. Noting Cain’s challenge to the timing of the new incident 

report and the sanctions imposed, and citing questions concerning the disciplinary 

process, the Regional Director remanded the action for further review and rehearing. 

Cain appeared for the remand rehearing on February 24, 2016. The DHO 

sustained the original sanctions. On Cain’s appeal, the Regional Director again 

remanded, noting the absence of documentation that Cain was given a fresh opportunity 

to call witnesses. The Regional Director also noted the DHO’s failure to address the 

concerns from the prior remand relating to the delay concerning the new Possession of a 

Weapon charge, when both incident reports related to the same fight and relied on the 

same video evidence. The Regional Director issued remand instructions concerning the 

rewriting of the incident report and concerning a new DHO hearing. 

In April 2016, Incident Report No. 2761143 was rewritten to note that review of 

the video during the course of investigation revealed that both Cain and another inmate 

used swinging type weapons during the fight. On June 29, 2016, Cain appeared before 
4 

the DHO for a new hearing on the rewritten incident report. The DHO again sustained 

the original sanctions. Cain appealed to the Regional Director. On August 16, 2016, the 

Regional Director denied Cain’s appeal, concluding that the DHO reasonably determined 

that Cain had committed the prohibited act, that Cain’s due process arguments were 

without merit, and that the sanctions imposed were not disproportionate to his 

misconduct. The Regional Director advised Cain of the thirty-day period to appeal to the 

BOP Central Office General Counsel. Cain did not file an appeal of the Regional 

Director’s August 16, 2016 decision to the General Counsel. 

In January 2017, Cain filed his § 2241 habeas petition, alleging the inadequacy of 

the administrative remedy for challenging DHO sanctions. He also challenged the 

constitutionality of DHO Bittenbender’s actions concerning the rehearing process and in 

imposing sanctions. Cain sought to have the incident reports expunged and his good 

conduct time restored. The Respondents responded to the habeas petition, arguing that 

the petition should be dismissed because Cain failed to exhaust his administrative 

remedies. Cain filed a reply. District Court dismissed the petition, holding that Cain had 

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that he had not shown that exhaustion 

should be excused. This appeal followed.2

 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. 

 

2

 Cain also filed a timely motion for reconsideration, which the District Court denied. 

However, Cain did not file a separate notice of appeal or an amended notice of appeal 

concerning the order denying his post-judgment motion. See Fed. R. App. 

P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii). The scope of this appeal is thus limited to the District Court’s dismissal 
5 

A § 2241 petition is the appropriate vehicle for raising constitutional claims when 

a prison disciplinary proceeding results in the loss of good conduct time. See Queen v. 

Miner, 530 F.3d 253, 254 n.2 (3d Cir. 2008). A federal prisoner must exhaust his 

administrative remedies before pursuing relief under § 2241. See Moscato v. Fed. 

Bureau of Prisons, 98 F.3d 757, 760 (3d Cir. 1996). Under the BOP’s administrative 

remedy program, a federal prisoner found guilty at a DHO hearing may appeal the 

decision to the Regional Director. 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.14(d)(2). Following the Regional 

Director’s denial, an inmate has thirty days to file an appeal to the General Counsel, 

which is the “final administrative appeal.” 28 C.F.R. § 542.15(a). 

 Upon review of the record, we agree with the District Court that Cain failed to 

exhaust his administrative remedies, because he did not seek General Counsel review of 

the Regional Director’s August 16, 2016 decision. Because the time for filing a Central 

Office appeal has expired, Cain’s habeas claims are procedurally defaulted. See 

Moscato, 98 F.3d at 760. Ordinarily, Cain would have to meet the “cause and prejudice” 

standard for failing to exhaust his administrative remedies to obtain consideration of his 

§ 2241 habeas claims in federal court. See Moscato, 98 F.3d at 761-62. However, Cain 

maintains in his argument on appeal (as he did in his argument to the District Court in 

reply to the respondent) that no failure of administrative exhaustion occurred because he 

did file an appeal, on June 7, 2016, to the General Counsel. See Appellant’s Argument in 

Support of Appeal at 2. Cain argues that the BOP itself obstructed the administrative 

 

of Cain’s § 2241 habeas petition. 
6 

process because it failed to respond to his June 7, 2016 appeal until February 24, 2017. 

See id. Cain’s argument is without merit. The timing of the Central Office’s response to 

Cain’s June 7, 2016 appeal has no bearing on the exhaustion of remedies concerning the 

Regional Director’s later decision, on August 16, 2016, upholding the DHO’s finding of 

guilt and imposition of sanctions, after a hearing held on June 29, 2016. 

There being no substantial question presented on appeal, we will summarily affirm 

the judgment of the District Court. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.