Richardson v. Williams
4:20-cv-01023
| N.D. Ohio | May 15, 2020Background
- Petitioner Terry Richardson, a federal inmate at FCI Elkton, filed a pro se § 2241 habeas petition seeking immediate release to home confinement because of COVID-19 exposure risk.
- He alleges Elkton is being "ravaged" by COVID-19 and that his medical conditions (gastritis, chronic bronchitis, asthma) place him at heightened risk.
- Richardson did not allege he exhausted Bureau of Prisons (BOP) administrative remedies; he argues Elkton's administrative procedures are inadequate under current conditions.
- The court performed an initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 (applicable to § 2241 petitions).
- The court dismissed the petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, reasoning the BOP is in the best position to evaluate and decide home-confinement suitability during the pandemic.
- The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exhaustion of BOP administrative remedies is required before seeking release via § 2241 due to COVID-19 | Richardson: exhaustion unnecessary because Elkton procedures are inadequate and delay risks his life | BOP/Respondent: exhaustion is required; BOP has procedures and is best-placed to determine suitability for home confinement | Petition dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust; exhaustion required before § 2241 relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Alexander v. Northern Bureau of Prisons, [citation="419 F. App'x 544"] (6th Cir. 2011) (initial habeas petition review requirement)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (exhaustion protects agency authority and promotes efficiency; provides adequate record)
- McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140 (1992) (exhaustion principles and purposes)
- Detroit Newspaper Agency v. N.L.R.B., 286 F.3d 391 (6th Cir. 2002) (exhaustion allows agency to make factual record and correct errors)
- Shawnee Coal Co. v. Andrus, 661 F.2d 1083 (6th Cir. 1981) (summary of exhaustion doctrine purposes)