UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Eric Krieg, Petitioner
v. Case No. 22-cv-105-SM Opinion No. 2022 DNH 111
Warden, FCI Berlin, Respondent
O R D E R
Petitioner, Eric Krieg, is a federal inmate at FCI Berlin.
He brings this habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, challenging his loss of good time credits following a
disciplinary finding that he abused his phone privileges. But,
because the record reveals that Krieg failed to exhaust
available administrative remedies prior to filing his petition,
that petition must necessarily be denied.
Governing Law
As this court has previously noted, generally speaking,
“a § 2241 petitioner must exhaust available administrative
remedies before he can obtain relief in federal court. For a
federal prisoner to properly exhaust § 2241 claims challenging
the computation of a release date, he generally must comply with the [Bureau of Prisons’] Administrative Remedy Program which is
set forth in 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.10-19.” Jones v. Warden, FCI
Berlin, No. 19-CV-105-JL, 2020 WL 1326151, at *3 (D.N.H. Mar. 2,
2020), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Jones v. FCI
Berlin, Warden, No. 19-CV-105-JL, 2020 WL 1322541 (D.N.H. Mar.
20, 2020) (citations and internal punctuation omitted). See
also Fox v. Hazelwood, No. 21-CV-159-PB, 2022 WL 2907992, at *1
(D.N.H. July 22, 2022) (“Federal prisoners are ordinarily
required to exhaust available administrative remedies before
filing a habeas petition under § 2241.”) (citations omitted). 1
The BOP’s Administrative Remedy Program provides a multi-
tiered process by which inmates may seek formal review of their
complaints. When, as here, an inmate wishes to appeal an
adverse report from a Discipline Hearing Officer - known as a
“DHO Appeal” - he must submit an appeal to the Regional Director
within 20 calendar days of the inmate’s receipt of the report.
See 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.14(d)(2) and 542.15(a). “An inmate who is
not satisfied with the Regional Director’s response may submit
an Appeal . . . to the General Counsel within 30 calendar days
of the date the Regional Director signed the response.” Id. at
1 There are, of course, exceptions to the administrative exhaustion requirement. See, e.g., Fox v. Hazelwood, 2022 WL 2907992 at *1. But, Krieg has not shown that any such exception applies in this case.
2 § 542.15(a) (emphasis supplied). Administrative appeals to the
Regional Director and the General Counsel are “considered filed
on the date [they are] logged into the Administrative Remedy
Index as received.” Id. at § 542.18. Only after an inmate has
timely exhausted all available administrative appeals may he or
she then seek relief in federal court.
Although the court of appeals for this circuit has yet to
consider whether the so-called “mailbox rule” applies to
deadlines established by the Administrative Remedy Program, this
court and the majority of other courts to address the issue have
concluded that the mailbox rule does not apply. 2 See Jones v.
Warden, FCI Berlin, 2020 WL 1326151, at *4 (D.N.H. Mar. 2, 2020)
(collecting cases). See also Nigro v. Sullivan, 40 F.3d 990,
993-94 (9th Cir. 1994); Wall v. Holt, No. 1:CV-06-0194, 2007 WL
89000, at *3–4 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 9, 2007). Consequently, the
timeliness of an inmate’s appeal is not determined by the date
on which he places it into the prison’s mail system. Rather, as
the regulations unambiguously provide, an administrative appeal
2 Under the “mailbox rule,” a document submitted by an inmate is deemed “filed” on the “date that it is deposited in the prison’s internal mail-system for forwarding to the district court, provided that the prisoner utilizes, if available, the prison’s system for recording legal mail.” Morales-Rivera v. United States, 184 F.3d 109, 109 (1st Cir. 1999).
3 is “filed” when it is actually received and “logged into the
Administrative Remedy Index as received.” 28 C.F.R. § 542.18.
Discussion
On June 29, 2021, a corrections officer at FCI Berlin was
monitoring a telephone call seemingly placed by Krieg - that is
to say, the person using the phone had employed Krieg’s personal
identifier number (“PIN”) to make the call. But, the officer
discovered that another inmate and not Krieg had actually placed
the call. Indeed, prison records (and video surveillance)
revealed that Krieg was in a different part of the prison at the
time. Krieg denied any knowledge of the incident. He was,
however, subsequently charged with violating the prison’s
Prohibited Act Code, Section 297, which forbids “use of the
telephone for abuses other than criminal activity.” In other
words, Krieg was charged with having improperly circumvented (or
attempted to circumvent) the prison’s ability to monitor
inmates’ telephone calls by sharing his PIN with another inmate.
A disciplinary hearing was held a month later, at which
Krieg was afforded the opportunity to testify, call witnesses,
and present evidence. See generally Superintendent, Mass. Corr.
Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985) (discussing the
constitutionally required process that must be afforded an
4 inmate when a prison disciplinary hearing may result in the loss
of good time credits). By order dated August 4, 2021, the
Discipline Hearing Officer concluded that there was sufficient
evidence to support the conclusion that Krieg had violated
section 297 of the prison’s Prohibited Act Code. See Exhibits
to Petition (document no. 1-2) at 12. As punishment, Krieg lost
27 days in good time credit as well as email privileges for
three months. Id. at 13. He was advised of his right to appeal
to Regional Director within 20 days, as provided in the
Administrative Remedy Program. Id.
Krieg submitted a timely appeal with the Regional Director.
By order dated October 22, 2021, that appeal was denied on the
merits. In that denial, Krieg was advised as follows:
If you are dissatisfied with this response, you may appeal to the General Counsel, Federal Bureau of Prisons. Your appeal must be received in the Administrative Remedy Section, Office of General Counsel, . . . within 30 calendar days of the date of this response.
Exhibits to Petition (document no. 1-2) at 9 (emphasis
supplied). Krieg then filed an appeal with the Office of
General Counsel, but it was not received until November 30, 2021
- more than a week late. Id. at 13. Accordingly, Krieg’s
appeal was rejected as untimely. He was, however, given the
5 opportunity to “provide staff verification stating [the] reason
[the] untimely filing was not your fault.” Id. Krieg did not
avail himself of that opportunity. As a consequence, Krieg’s
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Eric Krieg, Petitioner
v. Case No. 22-cv-105-SM Opinion No. 2022 DNH 111
Warden, FCI Berlin, Respondent
O R D E R
Petitioner, Eric Krieg, is a federal inmate at FCI Berlin.
He brings this habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, challenging his loss of good time credits following a
disciplinary finding that he abused his phone privileges. But,
because the record reveals that Krieg failed to exhaust
available administrative remedies prior to filing his petition,
that petition must necessarily be denied.
Governing Law
As this court has previously noted, generally speaking,
“a § 2241 petitioner must exhaust available administrative
remedies before he can obtain relief in federal court. For a
federal prisoner to properly exhaust § 2241 claims challenging
the computation of a release date, he generally must comply with the [Bureau of Prisons’] Administrative Remedy Program which is
set forth in 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.10-19.” Jones v. Warden, FCI
Berlin, No. 19-CV-105-JL, 2020 WL 1326151, at *3 (D.N.H. Mar. 2,
2020), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Jones v. FCI
Berlin, Warden, No. 19-CV-105-JL, 2020 WL 1322541 (D.N.H. Mar.
20, 2020) (citations and internal punctuation omitted). See
also Fox v. Hazelwood, No. 21-CV-159-PB, 2022 WL 2907992, at *1
(D.N.H. July 22, 2022) (“Federal prisoners are ordinarily
required to exhaust available administrative remedies before
filing a habeas petition under § 2241.”) (citations omitted). 1
The BOP’s Administrative Remedy Program provides a multi-
tiered process by which inmates may seek formal review of their
complaints. When, as here, an inmate wishes to appeal an
adverse report from a Discipline Hearing Officer - known as a
“DHO Appeal” - he must submit an appeal to the Regional Director
within 20 calendar days of the inmate’s receipt of the report.
See 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.14(d)(2) and 542.15(a). “An inmate who is
not satisfied with the Regional Director’s response may submit
an Appeal . . . to the General Counsel within 30 calendar days
of the date the Regional Director signed the response.” Id. at
1 There are, of course, exceptions to the administrative exhaustion requirement. See, e.g., Fox v. Hazelwood, 2022 WL 2907992 at *1. But, Krieg has not shown that any such exception applies in this case.
2 § 542.15(a) (emphasis supplied). Administrative appeals to the
Regional Director and the General Counsel are “considered filed
on the date [they are] logged into the Administrative Remedy
Index as received.” Id. at § 542.18. Only after an inmate has
timely exhausted all available administrative appeals may he or
she then seek relief in federal court.
Although the court of appeals for this circuit has yet to
consider whether the so-called “mailbox rule” applies to
deadlines established by the Administrative Remedy Program, this
court and the majority of other courts to address the issue have
concluded that the mailbox rule does not apply. 2 See Jones v.
Warden, FCI Berlin, 2020 WL 1326151, at *4 (D.N.H. Mar. 2, 2020)
(collecting cases). See also Nigro v. Sullivan, 40 F.3d 990,
993-94 (9th Cir. 1994); Wall v. Holt, No. 1:CV-06-0194, 2007 WL
89000, at *3–4 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 9, 2007). Consequently, the
timeliness of an inmate’s appeal is not determined by the date
on which he places it into the prison’s mail system. Rather, as
the regulations unambiguously provide, an administrative appeal
2 Under the “mailbox rule,” a document submitted by an inmate is deemed “filed” on the “date that it is deposited in the prison’s internal mail-system for forwarding to the district court, provided that the prisoner utilizes, if available, the prison’s system for recording legal mail.” Morales-Rivera v. United States, 184 F.3d 109, 109 (1st Cir. 1999).
3 is “filed” when it is actually received and “logged into the
Administrative Remedy Index as received.” 28 C.F.R. § 542.18.
Discussion
On June 29, 2021, a corrections officer at FCI Berlin was
monitoring a telephone call seemingly placed by Krieg - that is
to say, the person using the phone had employed Krieg’s personal
identifier number (“PIN”) to make the call. But, the officer
discovered that another inmate and not Krieg had actually placed
the call. Indeed, prison records (and video surveillance)
revealed that Krieg was in a different part of the prison at the
time. Krieg denied any knowledge of the incident. He was,
however, subsequently charged with violating the prison’s
Prohibited Act Code, Section 297, which forbids “use of the
telephone for abuses other than criminal activity.” In other
words, Krieg was charged with having improperly circumvented (or
attempted to circumvent) the prison’s ability to monitor
inmates’ telephone calls by sharing his PIN with another inmate.
A disciplinary hearing was held a month later, at which
Krieg was afforded the opportunity to testify, call witnesses,
and present evidence. See generally Superintendent, Mass. Corr.
Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985) (discussing the
constitutionally required process that must be afforded an
4 inmate when a prison disciplinary hearing may result in the loss
of good time credits). By order dated August 4, 2021, the
Discipline Hearing Officer concluded that there was sufficient
evidence to support the conclusion that Krieg had violated
section 297 of the prison’s Prohibited Act Code. See Exhibits
to Petition (document no. 1-2) at 12. As punishment, Krieg lost
27 days in good time credit as well as email privileges for
three months. Id. at 13. He was advised of his right to appeal
to Regional Director within 20 days, as provided in the
Administrative Remedy Program. Id.
Krieg submitted a timely appeal with the Regional Director.
By order dated October 22, 2021, that appeal was denied on the
merits. In that denial, Krieg was advised as follows:
If you are dissatisfied with this response, you may appeal to the General Counsel, Federal Bureau of Prisons. Your appeal must be received in the Administrative Remedy Section, Office of General Counsel, . . . within 30 calendar days of the date of this response.
Exhibits to Petition (document no. 1-2) at 9 (emphasis
supplied). Krieg then filed an appeal with the Office of
General Counsel, but it was not received until November 30, 2021
- more than a week late. Id. at 13. Accordingly, Krieg’s
appeal was rejected as untimely. He was, however, given the
5 opportunity to “provide staff verification stating [the] reason
[the] untimely filing was not your fault.” Id. Krieg did not
avail himself of that opportunity. As a consequence, Krieg’s
(attempted) appeal to General Counsel was never resolved on the
merits. 3
The government moves for summary judgment, asserting that
Krieg failed to exhaust available prison remedies prior to
filing his petition for habeas relief. In particular, the
government points to the rejection of Krieg’s appeal to General
Counsel as untimely and Krieg’s failure to explain that
untimeliness. In response, Krieg asserts that General Counsel
got it wrong: he did file a timely appeal when he deposited his
appeal to General Counsel in the prison’s mail system, postage
prepaid, before the thirty-day appeal period had lapsed
(essentially invoking the prison “mailbox rule”). He also
vaguely argues that lack of adequate access to the prison’s law
library explains - and excuses - his lack of timely filing.
But, as noted above, he was given the opportunity to present
3 Parenthetically, the court notes that Krieg has submitted more than 40 requests for administrative remedies during his incarceration. See Affidavit of Cheryl Magnusson (document no. 6-1) at para. 7. He is, therefore, intimately familiar with the Bureau of Prisons’ Administrative Remedy Program and the applicable filing deadlines.
6 those arguments to General Counsel yet failed to do so. This is
not the forum to litigate those claims in the first instance.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, as well as those set forth in
the government’s memorandum, it is plain that Krieg failed to
exhaust available prison administrative remedies prior to filing
his habeas corpus petition. Specifically, Krieg neglected to
file a timely appeal with General Counsel, as required by the
Bureau of Prisons’ Administrative Remedy Program, 28 C.F.R.
§ 542.10, et seq. Accordingly, the government’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (document no. 6) is granted. Krieg’s petition
for habeas relief (document no. 1) is necessarily dismissed,
albeit without prejudice.
The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in accordance with
this order and close the case.
SO ORDERED.
____________________________ Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge
September 9, 2022
cc: Eric Krieg, pro se Seth R. Aframe, AUSA