Opinion ID: 161259
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: challenges to the sams

Text: 22 The Attorney General maintains that Mr. Yousef failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the PLRA. In response, Mr. Yousef raises four closely related arguments in support of his contention that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable and therefore no exhaustion was required: (1) there were no administrative remedies against the BOP available to him because only the Attorney General may impose SAMs; (2) under our holding in Garrett, exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required; (3) Mr. Yousef's letter to the Attorney General fulfilled any remaining exhaustion requirements and (4) Mr. Yousef's informal and formal petitions and the responses thereto obviated the need to exhaust remaining administrative remedies. We consider each contention in turn. 23
24 First, Mr. Yousef contends that the BOP was only authorized to implement specific SAMs when directed to do so by the Attorney General. Because the BOP lacked discretion to provide remedies on its own, Mr. Yousef maintains, exhaustion was not required. 25 We agree with the magistrate judge that the BOP regulations provide an avenue for inmates to exhaust their administrative remedies: an inmate may seek review of any special restrictions imposed in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section through the Administrative Remedy Program, 28 C.F.R. part 542. 28 C.F.R. 501.3(d). 26 As to the suggestion that the BOP is without power to implement or execute SAMs, the pertinent regulation provides: 27 (a) Upon direction of the Attorney General, the Director, Bureau of Prisons, may authorize the Warden to implement special administrative measures that are reasonably necessary to protect persons against the risk of death or serious bodily injury. . . . These procedures may be implemented upon written notification to the Director, Bureau of Prisons, by the Attorney General. 28 28 C.F.R. 501.3(a) (emphasis added). Mr. Yousef contends that the use of the word may in practice means must: upon direction by the Attorney General to implement SAMs, the BOP has no choice but to comply. On the other hand, the BOP may not issue SAMs if not so directed by the Attorney General. 29 The government emphasizes that the BOP retains discretion as to whether or not to implement the SAMs and as to how to execute them. According to the government, this discretion allows the BOP to better tailor its measures to the requirements of each particular case. The government's argument is supported by the BOP regulations, which state that 'May' means a discretionary right, privilege, or power is conferred. 28 C.F.R. 500.1(f). In addition, the discretion is given to only two actors: to the Director of the BOP or the Acting Director, and cannot be further delegated. See id. 501.3(c). The Attorney General's directive is thus a necessary but not sufficient precursor to the implementation of the SAMs. 30 We see no reason to diverge from the clear language of the regulation, and hold that the BOP has the discretion to implement SAMs. In order to protect against serious bodily injury, the BOP must be able to tailor the measures on an individual basis. Affording the BOP such discretion also allows it to reassess the restrictions and confirm that the circumstances identified in the original notification continue to exist. We therefore conclude that Mr. Yousef's contention that 501.3 confers no discretionary powers upon the BOP is without merit. 31
32 Next, Mr. Yousef contends that pursuant to our holding in Garrett, 127 F.3d at 1267, he is not required to exhaust any administrative remedies before seeking relief in federal court. We stated in Garrett that a prisoner can only exhaust administrative remedies that are actually available. Id. We further concluded that, as to claims for monetary relief, there were no administrative remedies for the plaintiff prisoner to exhaust under the PLRA. Mr. Yousef maintains that, because the BOP is powerless to address his complaints, there are no available remedies for him to exhaust. 33 The Supreme Court's holding in Booth forecloses Mr. Yousef's argument. In Booth, the Court concluded that 1997e(a) mandates exhaustion regardless of the relief offered through administrative procedures. Booth, U.S., at, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 1824, 149 L.Ed.2d 958. Furthermore, the Court rejected Mr. Yousef's suggestion that a futility exception should relieve him of the need to apply to an agency that allegedly has no power to decree relief: we stress the point . . . that we will not read futility or other exceptions into statutory exhaustion requirements where Congress has provided otherwise. Id. at 1824 n.6. 34
35 Mr. Yousef next contends that, if exhaustion was required, his counsel's letter to the Attorney General, or the Assistant Attorney General's (AAG) response, fulfilled this requirement. The AAG's response explained the rationale for each SAM, and closed by noting: I trust that this response will answer your questions in regard to the imposition of SAM. Should you require further clarification, please feel free to contact my office. Aplt's App. Att. C at 7 n.1 (Magistrate Judge's Recommendation on Motion to Dismiss, filed March 30, 1999). Mr. Yousef suggests that the AAG's closing, which makes no reference to the BOP Administrative Remedy Program, foreclosed the possibility of Mr Yousef's obtaining non-judicial administrative relief. 36 We disagree. The AAG's response had no impact upon the requirement that Mr. Yousef exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief. And, as the magistrate judge noted, Mr. Yousef provides no authority for his assertion that the AAG should have advised plaintiff of the need to follow BOP administrative procedures. Aplt's App. C (Recommendation on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss) at 7. 37
38 Finally, Mr. Yousef contends that his filing of an informal complaint, and a formal petition, combined with the BOP's responses, pursuant to 524.14, obviated the exhaustion requirement. He does not, and clearly could not, maintain that he exhausted the administrative remedies provided in 542.15(a) (specifying required appeal to the Regional Director and final administrative appeal to the General Counsel). Instead, he avers the response to his Informal Resolution frustrated his ability to proceed with his administrative remedies: 39 This is in response to an Informal Resolution you submitted February 19, 1999, objecting to the legality and fairness of the Special Administrative Measures, which are to be implemented during your confinement. This issue has been reviewed by your Unit Team, it has been determined that this institution has no jurisdiction in this matter as the Special Administrative Measures were issued from the Attorney General's Office. 40 Aplt's Br. at 19 (quoting Informal Resolution Staff Response, dated February 23, 1999 (emphasis supplied)). 41 Because the BOP disclaimed having any jurisdiction to review his formal complaint challenging the legality and fairness of the regulations, Mr. Yousef argues there was no remedy available to him. Aplt's Br. at 16. We agree that the wording of this response is misleading, because it does not suggest that the BOP is empowered to review challenges to the fairness of individual SAMs. Mr. Yousef states that his primary claim is a challenge to the constitutionality of the SAMs, Aplt's Br. at 24, and to force him to an administrative procedure would serve no purpose as [the BOP has] no mechanism to even rule on such a claim. Id. 42 In response, the Attorney General explains that the BOP is powerless to review the legality and fairness of the SAMs or the overall authority of the Department of Justice regulations. The BOP disclaimed jurisdiction because a challenge to only the legality and fairness of the SAMs suggested the overall invalidity of the regulations, to which the BOP could not speak. 3 43 However, as to the fairness of the SAMs, the Attorney General emphasizes that the BOP can and does evaluate the merits of individual constitutional challenges and may modify particular conditions of an inmate's confinement. We agree: the Administrative Remedy Program may address fairness grievances that do not implicate the general invalidity of the SAMs, such as Mr. Yousef's challenges to limitations on exercise time, to limitations on non-English communications, and to restrictions on his carrying of religious materials into an exercise area. 44 As the Attorney General has also concluded, the BOP is authorized to rule on challenges to specific SAMs. Thus, despite the BOP's inability to address challenges to the SAM's overall validity, Mr. Yousef was required to exhaust all of his administrative remedies before seeking judicial consideration of his claims.