United States District Court, D. Minnesota
M. Provinzino, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, for
Kalif Jones, defendant, pro se.
Patrick J. Schiltz United States District Judge
matter is before the Court on defendant Nieem Kalif
Jones's “Motion for Additional RRC for the Second
Chance Act.” ECF No. 67. Jones is serving an 84-month
sentence at the federal prison camp in Duluth, Minnesota.
Jones's sentence will expire on July 6, 2018. ECF No.
67-1 at 2. Jones was informed by the Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”) that he will be transferred from prison
to home confinement on January 5, 2018-that is, exactly six
months before his sentence expires. ECF No. 68 at 2. Jones
believes that, under the Second Chance Act,  he is entitled to
be transferred to home confinement or a residential reentry
center (“RRC”) when he has served all but ten
percent of his sentence-that is, 8.4 months before his
sentence expires. Id. at 2-3.
that the BOP plans to cheat him out of 2.4 months of
non-prison time, Jones filed this motion, asking the Court to
order the BOP to “[g]rant Defendant additional time to
be served in RRC under the Second Chance Act . . . of up to
1-year.” ECF No. 67 at ¶ 1. Jones asks, “in
the alternative, ” that the Court order the BOP to
“re- evaluate defendant for additional time to be
served in the RRC for the second chance act.”
Id. at ¶¶ 1-2. Jones's motion
challenges the execution of his sentence rather than its
validity, and thus the Court treats Jones's motion as a
habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Nichols v.
Symmes, 553 F.3d 647, 649 (8th Cir. 2009).
prisoner may bring a habeas action challenging the BOP's
execution of his sentence only if he first presents his claim
to the BOP.” Mathena v. United States, 577
F.3d 943, 946 (8th Cir. 2009). As this Court has explained:
The administrative remedy procedure at the BOP is a three-
tiered process. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.13-542.15.
The first stage is an informal resolution where the prisoner
presents his or her claims to the staff, and if unsuccessful,
then files a formal grievance with the Warden. §
542.13-14. An inmate that is still dissatisfied may submit an
appeal to the Regional Director. § 542.15. Finally, if
the inmate is still dissatisfied, the inmate can appeal to
the General Counsel on a form designed for Central Office
Appeals. Id. An inmate's administrative remedies
have been exhausted when the inmate either: (1) receives a
response from the Central Office or (2) the Central Office
exceeds its time to reply, including any extensions for reply
that have been granted. §§ 542.15, 542.18.
Crawford v. Nicklin, No. 13-CV-2462 (JRT/SER), 2014
WL 538699, at *3 (D. Minn. Feb. 11, 2014).
is no evidence that Jones has done any of this-that is, no
evidence that he presented his claim to staff, no evidence
that he filed a formal grievance with his warden, no evidence
that he appealed to the Regional Director, and no evidence
that he appealed to the Central Office. Because Jones has
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, his habeas
action must be dismissed without prejudice.
Jones exhausts his administrative remedies-and if the BOP
does not give him the relief that he seeks-then Jones may
attempt to challenge the BOP's decision by filing another
action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Jones is, however,
cautioned about two things. First, Jones relies on §
3624(c), but § 3624(c)(4) is clear that “[n]othing
in [§ 3624(c)] shall be construed to limit or restrict
the authority of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons under
section 3621.” And second, a court will not overturn a
decision of the BOP under § 3621 about where Jones
should serve his sentence as long as the BOP gives
individualized consideration to each of the factors
identified in § 3621(b) and acts in good
on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and
proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT defendant Nieem
Kalif Jones's “motion for additional RRC for the
Second Chance Act” [ECF No. 67]-which this Court
construes as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241-is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
JUDGMENT BE ...