Opinion ID: 161259
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Frustration of Mr. Yousef's Ability to Exhaust

Text: 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.