Variste v. Woods
Decision Date | 30 August 2019 |
Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-131-WHA |
Parties | CLIFFORT VARISTE, Reg. No. 01767-104, Petitioner, v. WALTER WOODS, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
This case is before the court on a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Cliffort Variste. At the time he filed the petition, Variste was incarcerated at the Federal Prison Camp in Montgomery, Alabama, serving an aggregate 75-month sentence followed by three years of supervised release imposed upon him in 2014 by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida due to his convictions for access device fraud and aggravated identity fraud. Doc. 17-1 at 3-4. In this petition, Variste challenges the constitutionality of his removal from placement at a Residential Reentry Center ("RRC") in Miami, Florida in December of 2018. Specifically, Variste alleges that he "was removed from RRC placement without being afforded due process[.]" Doc. 1 at 3. He seeks return "for RRC placement or home confinement" for the remainder of his term of incarceration. Doc. 1 at 6.
The respondent filed a response, supported by relevant evidentiary materials addressing Variste's claim for relief. In this response, the respondent maintains that the instant petition is due to be summarily denied, as Variste failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies prior to filing the instant petition. Doc. 17 at 4-6. He also denies any violation of Variste's constitutional rights with respect to his removal from RRC placement. Doc. 17 at 8.
In support of his exhaustion defense, the respondent filed a declaration from J. Latease Bailey, the Consolidated Legal Center Leader/Supervisory Attorney for the Federal Bureau of Prisons who covers the Montgomery Federal Prison Camp. In her declaration, Ms. Bailey provides the following information:
Doc. 17-5 at 2-4 ( ).
The respondent further argues that even had Variste exhausted his administrative remedies, he is entitled to no relief on the claim pending before this court as this petition has been rendered moot by Variste's release from incarceration such that the Bureau of Prisons cannot "return him to RRC [or place him on home confinement due] to his ... release." Doc. 17 at 7.
The law is well-settled that a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus is the proper vehicle for a prisoner to challenge the manner, location or execution of his sentence. See Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 236 (2001); Williams v. Pearson, 197 F. App'x 872, 877 (11th Cir. 2006); Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Williams, 425 F.3d 987, 990 (11th Cir. 2005); Bishop v. Reno, 210 F.3d 1295, 1304 n.14 (11th Cir. 2005); Jiminian v. Nash, 245 F.3d 144, 146 (2d Cir. 2001); UnitedStates v. Miller, 871 F.2d 488, 490 (4th Cir. 1989). Here, Variste alleges that he is entitled to "RRC placement or home confinement" pursuant to applicable federal law. Doc. 1 at 6. Since Variste challenges the execution of his sentence, his claim is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. "Jurisdiction is determined at the time the action is filed[.]" United States v. Edwards, 27 F.3d 564 (4th Cir. 1994). Thus, venue is proper before this court, as Variste was incarcerated in this district at the time he filed the instant habeas petition. Fernandez v. United States, 941 F.2d, 1488, 1495 (11th Cir. 1991) ( ); Brown v. Warden of FCI Williamsburg, 2019 WL 1780747, at *2 ), Report and Recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 1773382 (D.S.C. Apr. 23, 2019) ().
It is well-settled that a federal prisoner who seeks habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 "must [first] exhaust his available administrative remedies before he can obtain relief [from the court on his petition]." Davis v. Warden, FCC Coleman-USP, 661 F. App'x 561, 562 (11th Cir. 2016), citing Santiago-Lugo v. Warden, 785 F.3d 467, 474-75 (11th Cir. 2015); Carmona v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 243 F.3d 629, 632, 634 (2nd Cir. 2001); Martinez v. Roberts, 804 F.2d 570, 571 (9th Cir. 1986); Fuller v. Rich, 11 F.3d 61, 62 (5th Cir. 1994). "[Federal] prisoners seeking habeas relief, including relief pursuant to § 2241, are subject to administrative exhaustion requirements." Skinner v.Wiley, 355 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir.2004) ( )(abrogated by Santiago-Lugo, 785 F.3d at 474-75 only as to jurisdictional nature of the exhaustion requirement). "An inmate has not fully exhausted his administrative remedies until he has appealed through all three levels [of the BOP's administrative remedies]." Irwin v. Hawk, 40 F.3d 347, 349 n. 2 (11th Cir.1994). Although the administrative exhaustion requirement is judge-made, rather than jurisdictional, "[t]he exhaustion requirement is still a requirement; it's just not a jurisdictional one." Santiago-Lugo, 785 F.3d at 475.
"In order to properly exhaust administrative remedies, a petitioner must comply with an agency's deadlines and procedural rules." Davis, 661 F. App'x at 562, citing Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91 (2006) ( ). In Woodford, the Court determined that because proper exhaustion of administrative remedies is necessary an inmate cannot satisfy the exhaustion requirement "by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective administrative grievance or appeal[,]" or by effectively bypassing the administrative process simply by waiting until the grievance procedure is no longer available to him. 548 U.S. at 83-84. The Court reasoned that to hold otherwise would eviscerate the exhaustion requirement. Id. at 90-91; see also Johnson v. Meadows, 418 F.3d 1152, 1157 (11th Cir. 2005) ( ); Higginbottom v. Carter, 223 F.3d 1259, 1261 (11th Cir. 2000) ( ). Thus, when a federal inmate fails to exhaust fully and properlyall administrative remedies provided by the BOP before filing his habeas petition, the petition is due to be denied for such failure. See Davis, 661 F.App'x at 562; Santiago-Lugo, 355 F.3d 1295.
The declaration of Ms. Bailey quoted above details the formal administrative remedies available to Variste and his failure to properly exhaust these remedies. Doc. 17-5 at 2-4. It is undisputed that the BOP provides a specific administrative remedy procedure through which inmates can present their claims regarding any aspect of imprisonment to prison officials. 28 C.F.R. § 542.10(a) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial