Banks v. Ma'at, 2:20-cv-01610

Petitioner Frederick Banks, a federal inmate, filed a pro se § 2241 habeas petition on December 10, 2020, challenging BOP computation of his sentence and other BOP actions.
Banks contends BOP failed to credit him for 20 months of time served in 2013 and that FCIO staff restricted his email and improperly requested a low security management variable from DSCC, delaying transfer/release.
Banks is serving consecutive federal sentences (80 months and 24 months) imposed June 12, 2020, in the W.D. Pa. for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft.
The BOP has a four-step administrative remedy process (informal attempt, BP-9 to warden, BP-10 to Regional Director, BP-11 to Office of General Counsel).
Banks alleged he submitted a BP-10 but provided no proof of a BP-11; he did not show administrative exhaustion or that exhaustion was futile or unavailable.
Magistrate Judge Kay issued a Report & Recommendation that the petition be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; parties have 14 days to object.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Banks exhausted BOP administrative remedies before filing § 2241	Banks says he filed BP-10 (Regional appeal) and thus pursued admin relief	BOP/Respondent shows no BP-11 proof; exhaustion incomplete	Dismissed for failure to exhaust; no BP-11 shown and no futility alleged
Whether BOP miscalculated sentence / improperly restricted email and sought low security variable	Banks argues BOP erroneously omitted 20 months credit and unlawfully restricted/email and delayed transfer	Respondent did not litigate merits because exhaustion not complete	Merits not reached; claims dismissed without prejudice for non-exhaustion

Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2000) (§ 2241 attacks execution/duration of sentence)
Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688 (1st Cir. 1970) (preliminary review requires factual showing of real possibility of constitutional error)
Skinner v. Wiley, 355 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2004) (federal prisoner ordinarily must exhaust administrative remedies before § 2241)
Fuller v. Rich, 11 F.3d 61 (5th Cir. 1994) (exhaustion requirement for § 2241 and burden on petitioner to show futility)
Rourke v. Thompson, 11 F.3d 47 (5th Cir. 1993) (same)
Gardner v. School Bd. Caddo Parrish, 958 F.2d 108 (5th Cir. 1992) (petitioner bears burden to demonstrate futility of administrative review)
Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (procedural consequences of failing to timely object to a magistrate judge's report)