Opinion ID: 204676
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Administrative Tolling

Text: A § 2241 petition relates to the execution of a sentence (as opposed to a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition which relates to the validity of a conviction). Dulworth, 442 F.3d at 1268. Consequently, a § 2241 petition often challenges a prison administrative decision rather than a state court judgment. In such situations, we require inmates to exhaust their administrative remedies prior to filing a § 2241 petition. See Garza v. Davis, 596 F.3d 1198, 1203 (10th Cir. 2010) (“The exhaustion of available administrative remedies is a prerequisite for § 2241 habeas relief, although we recognize that the statute itself does not expressly contain such a requirement.”). Titsworth did so, seeking to resolve the matter administratively before filing the instant action. The “timely and diligent exhaustion of administrative remedies” can toll the statute of limitations. Dulworth, 442 F.3d at 1268 (emphasis added). Titsworth diligently pursued administrative relief. He did not, however, timely do so. He waited over a year after learning he was being denied enhanced credits due to his conviction in 84-51 to file his first “Request to Staff.”9 Therefore, he did not begin to exhaust his administrative remedies until after the limitations period had already expired. Consequently, his exhaustion of administrative remedies, however diligent, did not toll 9 Titsworth claims the year delay resulted from the records department’s failure to respond after Brown (his case manager) provided the department with Judge Norman and Judge Alford’s orders. While such facts may excuse a short delay, they hardly support a year delay. - 12 - the limitations period. See cf. Fisher, 262 F.3d at 1142-43. He is not entitled to administrative tolling.