Alfredo Salazar-Amaro v. Warden FCI Oakdale

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

ALFREDO SALAZAR-AMARO DOCKET NO. 2:25-cv-01281 REG. # 65951-509 SECTION P

VERSUS JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.

WARDEN FCI OAKDALE MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEBLANC

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court are the original and amended petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by pro se petitioner Alfredo Salazar-Amaro (“Petitioner”). Docs. 1, 6. Petitioner is an inmate in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Center at Oakdale, Louisiana (“FCIO”). Petitioner was ordered to amend his petition on January 26, 2026, to provide proof of exhaustion. Doc. 4. He did so on March 9, 2026. Doc. 6. The matter is now ripe for review. This matter has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the standing orders of this Court. For the following reasons IT IS RECOMMENDED that the petition be DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. I. BACKGROUND

Salazar-Amaro brings this petition asking the Court to apply credits to his federal sentence. Doc. 1. It appears that Petitioner took the first step in appealing the decision but admittedly did not proceed any further to fully exhaust all administrative remedies. Doc. 6. II. LAW & ANALYSIS

A. Screening of Habeas Corpus Petitions A district court may apply any or all of the rules governing habeas petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to those filed under § 2241. See Rule 1(b), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases authorizes preliminary review of such petitions, and states that they must be summarily dismissed “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Id. at Rule 4. To avoid summary dismissal under Rule 4, the petition must contain factual allegations pointing to a “real possibility of constitutional error.” Id. at Rule 4, Advisory Committee Note (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)). Accordingly, we review the pleadings and exhibits before us to determine whether any right to relief is indicated, or whether the petition must be dismissed. B. Exhaustion

A petitioner seeking relief under § 2241 “must first exhaust his administrative remedies through the Bureau of Prisons.” Rourke v. Thompson, 11 F.3d 47, 49 (5th Cir. 1993) (citing United States v. Gabor, 905 F.2d 76, 78 n. 2 (5th Cir. 1990)); Gallegos-Hernandez v. United States, 688 F.3d 190, 194 (5th Cir. 2012) (holding that exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite to § 2241 relief); United States v. Cleto, 956 F.2d 83, 84 (5th Cir. 1992). BOP has a four-step administrative process for resolving complaints by prisoners. Initially, a prisoner must attempt to informally resolve the complaint with staff. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.13(a). If informal attempts are unsuccessful, the prisoner must submit a written complaint to the warden on a prescribed form (BP-9). 28 C.F.R. § 542.14. If the prisoner is not satisfied with the warden’s response, he may appeal to the Regional Director within twenty days after the warden’s response (BP-10). 28 C.F.R. § 542.15. If still unsatisfied, the prisoner may appeal to the Central Office (BP- 11). /d. There are time limits for BOP officials to respond at each level of the administrative remedy process. Petitioner did not appeal the BOP decision past the filing of an informal “Request to Staff.” Doc. 6. Dismissal on this basis alone is warranted. See Rivkin v. Tamez, 351 F. App’x 876, 877- 78 (Sth Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of prisoner’s § 2241 petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies). TI. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the instant petition be DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation to file written objections with the Clerk of Court. Failure to file written objections to the proposed factual findings and/or the proposed legal conclusions reflected in this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of receipt shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking either the factual findings or the legal conclusions accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass ’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1429-30 (Sth Cir. 1996). THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers this 27th day of July, 2026.

UNITED S ES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-