Opinion ID: 161259
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Availability of Administrative Remedies

Text: 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