Lonnie Bernard Davis v. Warden, FCC Coleman - USP I
661 F. App'x 561
11th Cir.2016Background
- Lonnie Davis, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging disciplinary proceedings from 2011 (possession of a prohibited weapon) and related actions.
- The signed Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) report was delivered to Davis on February 17, 2011.
- BOP regulations required filing an appeal to the Regional Director within 20 days and to the General Counsel within 30 days of the regional response; time extensions permitted for valid reasons with staff verification.
- Davis filed his regional appeal on March 15, 2011 (rejected as untimely), resubmitted on May 18, 2011 (again rejected), and filed to the Central Office in August 2011 (beyond the 30-day limit).
- Davis argued delay was caused by denial of a staff memo and alleged indigence; the record showed he obtained stamps on February 18, 2011, undermining the claimed inability to timely file.
- The district court dismissed Davis’s § 2241 petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed (construing dismissal as denial because exhaustion is nonjurisdictional).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davis’s § 2241 claims were properly dismissed for failure to exhaust BOP administrative remedies | Davis argued he could not timely file appeals due to unit manager’s denial of a staff memo and indigence | BOP (and district court) argued appeals were untimely under 28 C.F.R. § 542.15 and no valid reason for delay was shown | Affirmed: dismissal (construed as denial) was proper because appeals were untimely and no valid excuse shown |
| Whether the alleged denial of a staff memo excused untimely filing | Davis claimed the unit manager’s denial prevented him from complying with Regional Office’s ten-day directive | Record showed Davis obtained stamps on Feb 18, 2011, so he could have timely filed; no staff memo excuse shown | Held against Davis: the unit manager’s actions did not excuse the untimely filings |
| Whether a First Amendment retaliation claim is cognizable in § 2241 | Davis suggested retaliation claim in Ground Three | Government/district court maintained § 2241 only covers execution of sentence issues | Held: retaliation claim not cognizable in § 2241 because it does not challenge sentence execution |
| Whether exhaustion is jurisdictional, affecting the dismissal’s characterization | Davis argued procedural errors should not bar review; context of Santiago-Lugo change noted | Court noted Santiago-Lugo made exhaustion judge-made, not jurisdictional, but still required | Court construed dismissal as denial and affirmed because distinction did not affect outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowers v. Keller, 651 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2011) (standards for reviewing § 2241 denials)
- Antonelli v. Warden, U.S.P. Atlanta, 542 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2008) (§ 2241 covers challenges to execution of sentence)
- Santiago-Lugo v. Warden, 785 F.3d 467 (11th Cir. 2015) (administrative-exhaustion requirement is judge-made, not jurisdictional)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (prisoner must comply with agency deadlines and procedural rules to exhaust)
- Cani v. United States, 331 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2003) (district-court dismissal may be construed as denial when distinction is immaterial)
- Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2004) (issues or arguments not raised on appeal are abandoned)