(HC) Mendez v. Warden

Opinion

REYMUNDO JOSE MENDEZ, JR., No. 1:25-cv-00716-SKO (HC) Petitioner, ORDER TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS PETITION WARDEN, FCI-MENDOTA, [21-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE] Respondent. Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On May 19, 2025, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition in the Sacramento Division of this Court. (Doc. 1.) On June 12, 2025, the petition was transferred to the Fresno Division. Upon review of the petition, the Court finds that Petitioner has failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Accordingly, the Court will RECOMMEND the petition be DISMISSED without prejudice. A. Preliminary Review of Petition Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2001). B. Background On November 18, 2024, Petitioner was sentenced to a term of 60 months on an unstated conviction. He is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Mendota, California. In his petition, he claims that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) must transfer him to a halfway house pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act. C. Exhaustion Before filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, a federal prisoner challenging any circumstance of imprisonment must first exhaust all administrative remedies. Martinez v. Roberts, 804 F.2d 570, 571 (9th Cir. 1986); Chua Han Mow v. United States, 730 F.2d 1308, 1313 (9th Cir. 1984); Ruviwat v. Smith, 701 F.2d 844, 845 (9th Cir. 1983). The requirement that federal prisoners exhaust administrative remedies before filing a habeas corpus petition was judicially created; it is not a statutory requirement. Brown v. Rison, 895 F.2d 533, 535 (9th Cir. 1990). Thus, “because exhaustion is not required by statute, it is not jurisdictional.” Id. If Petitioner has not properly exhausted his claims, the district court, in its discretion, may either “excuse the faulty exhaustion and reach the merits or require the petitioner to exhaust his administrative remedies before proceeding in court.” The first step in seeking administrative remedies is a request for informal resolution. 28 C.F.R. § 542.13. When informal resolution procedures fail to achieve sufficient results, the BOP makes available to inmates a formal three-level administrative remedy process: (1) a Request for Administrative Remedy (“BP-9”) filed at the institution where the inmate is incarcerated; (2) a Regional Administrative Remedy Appeal (“BP-10”) filed at the Regional Office for the geographic region in which the inmate’s institution is located; and (3) a Central Office Administrative Remedy Appeal (“BP-11”) filed with the Office of General Counsel. 28 C.F.R. § 542.10 et seq. Petitioner concedes he has not attempted to exhaust administrative remedies, contending to do so would be futile. The exhaustion requirement “is not lightly to be disregarded.” Murillo v. Mathews, 588 F.2d 759, 762, n.8 (9th Cir. 1978) (citation omitted). A “key consideration” in exercising such discretion is whether “relaxation of the requirement would encourage the deliberate bypass of the administrative scheme[.]” Laing v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 994, 1000 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). The exhaustion requirement should not be excused in this case because Petitioner has deliberately bypassed the administrative scheme, and permitting the petition to go forward would only encourage further deliberate bypass of the administrative process. Had Plaintiff properly sought administrative relief, the BOP would have granted him relief or advised him of the reason for his placement. Petitioner’s broad assertion that the BOP generally acts arbitrarily to ignore governing statutes is not a sufficient or founded reason to bypass administrative review. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case. For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, a party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Id. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation” and shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages, except by leave of court with good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation may be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014). This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE