IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION GABRIEL RAZO-ELIZARRARAS § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-cv-254 WARDEN, FCI BEAUMONT MEDIUM § REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Petitioner Gabriel Razo-Elizarraras, an inmate confined at the Federal Correctional Complex located in Beaumont, Texas, filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The above-styled action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case. The Petition Petitioner brings this Petition challenging the BOP’s decision not to award him credit toward his sentence for time spent in the custody of the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”) between September 19, 2019 and December 17, 2020. Alternatively, petitioner subsequently suggested that the timeframe should be July 27, 2019 through May 6, 2020. Petitioner also contends that the BOP should have designated a state facility, nunc pro tunc, as his official detention facility at which his federal sentence was to be served. The Response The Respondent was ordered to show cause why relief should not be granted. In response, the Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 10). The Respondent moves to dismiss the petition based on Petitioner’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies related to the claims which form the basis of his petition, the sentence is not correctly computed, and Petitioner’s claim for nunc pro tunc designation is now moot. Standard of Review Failure to State a Claim A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if the factual allegations are not sufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Dismissal for failure to state a claim is appropriate when the petitioner has failed to plead “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570). Petitioners must state enough facts to “nudge[] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570. In considering whether to dismiss a complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, all factual allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and construed favorably to the petitioner. Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Assoc., 987 F.2d 278, 284 (5th Cir. 1993). However, conclusory allegations will not suffice to prevent dismissal for failure to state a claim. Id. Summary Judgment Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED.R.CIV.P. 56(a). A fact is material if it could affect the outcome of the case under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Instone Travel Tech Marine & Offshore v. Int’l Shipping Partners, 334 F.3d 423, 427 (5th Cir. 2003). A dispute about a material fact is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Instone Travel Tech, 334 F.3d at 427. The party seeking summary judgment carries the initial burden of demonstrating that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party’s case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986); Hart v. Hairston, 343 F.3d 762, 764 (5th Cir. 2003). “Before the non-moving party is required to produce evidence in opposition to the motion, the moving party must first satisfy its 2 obligation of demonstrating that there are no factual issues warranting trial.” Commander v. BASF Wyandotte Corp., 978 F.2d 924, 927 n.4 (5th Cir. 1992). After a proper motion for summary judgment is made, the non-movant must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. FED.R.CIV.P. 56(e); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586- 87 (1986); Malacara v. Garber, 353 F.3d 393, 404 (5th Cir. 2003). Because summary judgment is a final adjudication on the merits, courts must employ the device cautiously. Hulsey v. State of Texas, 929 F.2d 168, 170 (5th Cir. 1991); Jackson v. Procunier, 789 F.2d 307 (5th Cir. 1986). In prisoner pro se cases, courts must be careful to “guard against premature truncation of legitimate lawsuits merely because of unskilled presentations.” Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1241 (5th Cir. 1989) (quoting Murrell v. Bennett, 615 F.2d 306, 311 (5th Cir. 1980)). Analysis Exhaustion Generally, a federal prisoner must exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking habeas relief in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Skinner v. Wiley, 355 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1036 (2004); Fuller v. Rich, 11 F.3d 61, 62 (5th Cir. 1994); see also Rourke v. Thompson, 11 F.3d 47, 49 (5th Cir. 1993). The exhaustion requirement applies to the computation of sentence credit awards. See, e.g. United States v. Gabor, 905 F.2d 76, 78 n.2 (5th Cir. 1990); Rodriguez v. Lamar, 60 F.3d 745, 747 (11th Cir. 1995).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION GABRIEL RAZO-ELIZARRARAS § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-cv-254 WARDEN, FCI BEAUMONT MEDIUM § REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Petitioner Gabriel Razo-Elizarraras, an inmate confined at the Federal Correctional Complex located in Beaumont, Texas, filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The above-styled action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case. The Petition Petitioner brings this Petition challenging the BOP’s decision not to award him credit toward his sentence for time spent in the custody of the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”) between September 19, 2019 and December 17, 2020. Alternatively, petitioner subsequently suggested that the timeframe should be July 27, 2019 through May 6, 2020. Petitioner also contends that the BOP should have designated a state facility, nunc pro tunc, as his official detention facility at which his federal sentence was to be served. The Response The Respondent was ordered to show cause why relief should not be granted. In response, the Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 10). The Respondent moves to dismiss the petition based on Petitioner’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies related to the claims which form the basis of his petition, the sentence is not correctly computed, and Petitioner’s claim for nunc pro tunc designation is now moot. Standard of Review Failure to State a Claim A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if the factual allegations are not sufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Dismissal for failure to state a claim is appropriate when the petitioner has failed to plead “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570). Petitioners must state enough facts to “nudge[] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570. In considering whether to dismiss a complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, all factual allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and construed favorably to the petitioner. Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Assoc., 987 F.2d 278, 284 (5th Cir. 1993). However, conclusory allegations will not suffice to prevent dismissal for failure to state a claim. Id. Summary Judgment Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED.R.CIV.P. 56(a). A fact is material if it could affect the outcome of the case under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Instone Travel Tech Marine & Offshore v. Int’l Shipping Partners, 334 F.3d 423, 427 (5th Cir. 2003). A dispute about a material fact is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Instone Travel Tech, 334 F.3d at 427. The party seeking summary judgment carries the initial burden of demonstrating that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party’s case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986); Hart v. Hairston, 343 F.3d 762, 764 (5th Cir. 2003). “Before the non-moving party is required to produce evidence in opposition to the motion, the moving party must first satisfy its 2 obligation of demonstrating that there are no factual issues warranting trial.” Commander v. BASF Wyandotte Corp., 978 F.2d 924, 927 n.4 (5th Cir. 1992). After a proper motion for summary judgment is made, the non-movant must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. FED.R.CIV.P. 56(e); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586- 87 (1986); Malacara v. Garber, 353 F.3d 393, 404 (5th Cir. 2003). Because summary judgment is a final adjudication on the merits, courts must employ the device cautiously. Hulsey v. State of Texas, 929 F.2d 168, 170 (5th Cir. 1991); Jackson v. Procunier, 789 F.2d 307 (5th Cir. 1986). In prisoner pro se cases, courts must be careful to “guard against premature truncation of legitimate lawsuits merely because of unskilled presentations.” Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1241 (5th Cir. 1989) (quoting Murrell v. Bennett, 615 F.2d 306, 311 (5th Cir. 1980)). Analysis Exhaustion Generally, a federal prisoner must exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking habeas relief in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Skinner v. Wiley, 355 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1036 (2004); Fuller v. Rich, 11 F.3d 61, 62 (5th Cir. 1994); see also Rourke v. Thompson, 11 F.3d 47, 49 (5th Cir. 1993). The exhaustion requirement applies to the computation of sentence credit awards. See, e.g. United States v. Gabor, 905 F.2d 76, 78 n.2 (5th Cir. 1990); Rodriguez v. Lamar, 60 F.3d 745, 747 (11th Cir. 1995). Exceptions to the exhaustion requirement apply only in “extraordinary circumstances” and the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating the futility of administrative review. Fuller, 11 F.3d at 62; Gardner v. School Bd. Caddo Parish, 958 F.2d 108, 112 (5th Cir.1992). The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), which administers the prison in which Petitioner is incarcerated, has a four-step 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 Request for Administrative Remedy to the Warden. 3 28 C.F.R. § 542.14. Ifthe prisoner is not satisfied with the Warden’s response, he may appeal to the Regional Director. 28 C.F.R. 542.15. Ifstill unsatisfied, the prisoner may file a national appeal to the Office of General Counsel as the final step in the administrative appeal process. Here, the competent summary judgment evidence shows Petitioner failed to exhaust the available administrative remedy procedure prior to filing his Petition. While Petitioner filed four administrative remedies relating to matters raised in this petition, none of these administrative remedies were considered and properly rejected because they were all procedurally defective. Accordingly, the Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted and the petition should be dismissed. Recommendation The Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should be dismissed. Objections Within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge’s report, any party may serve and file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations contained within this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. Civ. P. 72.
SIGNED this 15th day of August, 2024.
United States Magistrate Judge