Olden v. English
681 F. App'x 688
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Appellant Somoan Olden is a federal inmate serving 120 months; DHO found him guilty of Code 196 (Use of Mail for an Illegal Purpose) for sending tax‑filing materials from prison and revoked 41 days of good‑conduct credit. Code 219(A) (Stealing) was dismissed.
- Olden filed a pro se § 2241 habeas petition alleging insufficient evidence, due process violations at the disciplinary hearing, APA rulemaking defects, and a First Amendment violation.
- The District Court issued an Order to Show Cause, received the Bureau of Prisons’ response, and dismissed the petition.
- The District Court held Olden failed to exhaust administrative remedies because he did not timely file his Central Office (General Counsel) appeal; he filed that appeal late and offered no valid excuse or futility showing.
- The District Court also found the DHO’s decision supported by sufficient evidence and constitutionally adequate process, and that APA and First Amendment claims lacked merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHO had sufficient evidence to sustain Code 196 finding | Olden: evidence was insufficient to prove use of mail for illegal purpose | BOP: photocopies of envelope contents and relationship to recipient supported finding | Held: court accepted DHO’s factual finding as supported; not clearly erroneous |
| Whether Olden received constitutionally adequate due process at the hearing | Olden: hearing violated due process protections | BOP: procedures and DHO process were constitutionally adequate | Held: process was adequate; no due process violation |
| Whether APA rulemaking review applies to the DHO decision | Olden: DHO decision violates APA rulemaking procedures | BOP: DHO decision not reviewable under APA | Held: DHO decision not subject to APA review |
| Whether Olden exhausted administrative remedies before § 2241 filing | Olden: implied argument he proceeded properly (or exhaustion was futile) | BOP: Olden failed to timely file Central Office appeal and gave no valid reason or futility claim | Held: Failure to exhaust (late Central Office appeal) — petition dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Smith, 828 F.2d 1493 (10th Cir.) (per curiam) (§ 2241 may restore good‑time credits lost without due process)
- Hale v. Fox, 829 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir.) (standards for § 2241 review; de novo legal review and clear‑error factual review)
- Brace v. United States, 634 F.3d 1167 (10th Cir.) (§ 2241 attacks execution, not validity, of sentence)
- McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809 (10th Cir.) (§ 2241 challenges the fact or duration of confinement)
- Garza v. Davis, 596 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir.) (exhaustion of BOP administrative remedies required for § 2241)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (exhaustion requires using all agency steps properly)
- Williams v. O'Brien, 792 F.2d 986 (10th Cir.) (exhaustion prerequisite to § 2241 relief)
- Eldridge v. Berkebile, [citation="576 F. App'x 746"] (10th Cir.) (describing BOP administrative appeal process)