Kareem Millhouse v. Warden Lewisburg USP
666 F. App'x 98
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Millhouse, a federal inmate, received a DHO incident report for fighting and waived staff representation, did not appear, and submitted no documents.
- The DHO found him guilty based on the incident report, officers’ memoranda, medical records, photos, and nearby surveillance footage, imposing loss of 27 days’ good-conduct time and other sanctions.
- Millhouse appealed to the BOP Regional Director; he received no response and did not appeal to the BOP Central Office (General Counsel).
- Millhouse filed a § 2241 habeas petition asserting due-process violations arising from the disciplinary proceeding; the District Court sua sponte dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and procedural default.
- Millhouse moved for reconsideration; the District Court denied it. He appealed to the Third Circuit, which summarily affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Millhouse exhausted administrative remedies before § 2241 | Regional Director’s failure to respond prevented exhaustion | Millhouse failed to seek Central Office review, so remedies not exhausted | Failed to exhaust; must seek Central Office; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether procedural default can be excused by the Regional Director’s nonresponse | Nonresponse constituted an external impediment excusing default | Regulations allow treating nonresponse as denial; Millhouse could still appeal to Central Office | No cause shown; nonresponse did not excuse failure to appeal |
| Whether sua sponte dismissal for failure to exhaust was appropriate | Dismissal was improper because failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense | Sua sponte dismissal proper where petition shows lack of Central Office appeal after nonresponse | Sua sponte dismissal appropriate in these circumstances |
| Whether District Court abused discretion in denying reconsideration | Reconsideration warranted to excuse exhaustion due to nonresponse | No new evidence or clear error; denial proper | Denial of reconsideration not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Queen v. Miner, 530 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2008) (§ 2241 proper vehicle for loss-of-good-time challenges)
- Moscato v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 98 F.3d 757 (3d Cir. 1996) (exhaustion and cause-and-prejudice standards for habeas claims under § 2241)
- Max’s Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir. 1999) (standards for motions for reconsideration)
- Ray v. Kertes, 285 F.3d 287 (3d Cir. 2002) (discussion of sua sponte dismissal and exhaustion as an affirmative defense)