Harris v. Lillard

S.D. Illinois

Harris v. Lillard

DecidedJune 3, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-00683

StatusUnknown

This text of Harris v. Lillard (Harris v. Lillard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harris v. Lillard, (S.D. Ill. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

DWAYNE HARRIS Jr., ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 25-cv-683-SMY ) WARDEN, ) ) Respondent. ) )

ORDER YANDLE, District Judge:

Petitioner Dwayne Harris, presently an inmate of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and incarcerated at FCI Greenville, filed this habeas action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On October 18, 2021, Harris was sentenced in the Eastern District of Missouri. See United States v. Harris, 21-CR-00022-SNLJ-ACL. He now seeks to challenge the BOP’s failure to consider his placement in a halfway house (Doc. 1). This matter is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Petition. Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District Courts provides that upon preliminary consideration by the district judge, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Rule 1(b) gives the Court the authority to apply the rules to other habeas corpus cases, including the instant case. The request to change a federal prisoner’s level of custody can be challenged in a Section 2241 petition. See Graham v. Broglin, 922 F.2d 379, 381 (7th Cir. 1991). However, before a court can consider such a claim, the petitioner must exhaust administrative remedies. Clemente v. Allen, 120 F.3d 703, 705 (7th Cir. 1997). The Bureau of Prisons has created an Administrative Remedy Program which “allow[s] an inmate to seek formal review of an issue relating to any aspect of his/her own confinement.” 28 C.F.R. §542.10(a). Harris acknowledges he did not appeal the decision denying his request for halfway house placement (Doc. 1, pp. 2-5). Because Harris has failed to comply with the procedures of the Administrative Remedy Program, he has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Accordingly, Harris’ Petition is DISMISSED for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly and CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June 3, 2025 Mout bo STACI M. YANDLE United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

DWAYNE HARRIS Jr., ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 25-cv-683-SMY ) WARDEN, ) ) Respondent. ) )

ORDER YANDLE, District Judge:

Petitioner Dwayne Harris, presently an inmate of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and incarcerated at FCI Greenville, filed this habeas action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On October 18, 2021, Harris was sentenced in the Eastern District of Missouri. See United States v. Harris, 21-CR-00022-SNLJ-ACL. He now seeks to challenge the BOP’s failure to consider his placement in a halfway house (Doc. 1). This matter is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Petition. Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District Courts provides that upon preliminary consideration by the district judge, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Rule 1(b) gives the Court the authority to apply the rules to other habeas corpus cases, including the instant case. The request to change a federal prisoner’s level of custody can be challenged in a Section 2241 petition. See Graham v. Broglin, 922 F.2d 379, 381 (7th Cir. 1991). However, before a court can consider such a claim, the petitioner must exhaust administrative remedies. Clemente v. Allen, 120 F.3d 703, 705 (7th Cir. 1997). The Bureau of Prisons has created an Administrative Remedy Program which “allow[s] an inmate to seek formal review of an issue relating to any aspect of his/her own confinement.” 28 C.F.R. §542.10(a). Harris acknowledges he did not appeal the decision denying his request for halfway house placement (Doc. 1, pp. 2-5). Because Harris has failed to comply with the procedures of the Administrative Remedy Program, he has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Accordingly, Harris’ Petition is DISMISSED for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly and CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June 3, 2025 Mout bo STACI M. YANDLE United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Harris v. Lillard, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-lillard-ilsd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack