Eduard Buse v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

• Court: District Court, W.D. Louisiana
• Decided: September 17, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00909
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

EDUARD BUSE DOCKET NO. 2:25-cv-00909 REG. # 10183-506 SECTION P

VERSUS JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEBLANC

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by pro se petitioner Eduard Buse (“Petitioner”). Doc. 1. Petitioner is an inmate in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Center at Oakdale, Louisiana (“FCIO”). 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 RECOMMEDED that the petition be DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner is currently serving a sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Doc. 1, p. 1, ¶ 4. He challenges the calculation of his time credits pursuant to the First Step Act (“FSA”) . Id. at p. 6, ¶ 13. Petitioner appealed the decision to deny application of his FSA Time Credits to his sentence to the Correctional Counselor, via an Informal Resolution (BP-8), which was unsuccessful. Doc. 1-1, p. 7. Buse then filed an appeal with the Regional Office on March 24, 2025, but received no response. Doc. 1, p. 3. Petitioner did not appeal any further. II. LAW & ANALYSIS

A. Screening of Habeas Corpus Petitions A district court may apply any 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. Application

1. 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)); see also 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). The BOP has a four-step administrative process for resolving complaints by prisoners. Initially, a prisoner must attempt to informally resolve the complaint with staff. 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 U.S.C. § 542.15. If still unsatisfied, the prisoner may appeal to the Central Office (BP-11). Id. There are time limits for BOP officials to respond at each level of the

administrative remedy process. Petitioner contends that he has fully exhausted his administrative remedies. The attachments to his petition, however, belie his position. Petitioner’s informal grievance was properly filed, and a response was received. See doc. 1-1, p. 7. Petitioner’s subsequent filings were submitted out of order and have not properly made their way through the administrative process. “Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules because no adjudicative system can function effectively without imposing some orderly structure on the course of its proceedings.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91 (2006). Because Petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies by filing each step of the remedy procedure in a procedurally correct manner, or completing the process, before filing this petition,

the petition should be dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner must give the BOP an opportunity to review his claim before pursuing a § 2241 claim in this Court. III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the instant petition be DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 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 17th day of September, 2025.

UNITED S'R¥TES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-4-