From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Skinner v. Wiley

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Jan 8, 2004
355 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2004)

Summary

holding that "prisoners seeking habeas relief, including relief pursuant to § 2241, are subject to administrative exhaustion requirements"

Summary of this case from Sexton v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons

Opinion

No. 03-14118 Non-Argument Calendar.

January 8, 2004.

Frank A. Skinner, Atlanta, GA, pro se.

Robert David Powell, Atlanta, GA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.


Appellant Frank A. Skinner filed the instant petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming that federal officials (1) planted narcotics in his prison locker; (2) illegally processed the incident report while he remained in segregation; and (3) pretended to give evidence to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to conduct an investigation. Skinner also alleged that his grievances were rejected and the staff tampered with his mail. The district court dismissed Skinner's § 2241 petition for, among other things, failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required under § 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). On appeal, Skinner argues that the district court erred in determining that he had not exhausted his administrative remedies. Skinner also argues the merits of his petition.

We review de novo the district court's denial of habeas relief under § 2241. Cook v. Wiley, 208 F.3d 1314, 1317 (11th Cir. 2000).

After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not err in determining that Skinner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, although it did err in determining that the PLRA applied to Skinner's habeas petition. We, like several other circuits, have held that the PLRA does not apply to habeas petitions because (1) habeas petitions are not traditional civil actions; (2) Congress designed the PLRA to reduce frivolous civil actions from prisoners; and (3) the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which affects habeas petitions and motions to vacate, was enacted two days after the PLRA. See Anderson v. Singletary, 111 F.3d 801, 803-05 (11th Cir. 1997) (holding that the PLRA's filing fee provisions do not apply in §§ 2254 and 2255 petitions); see also Carmona v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 243 F.3d 629, 634 (2d Cir. 2001) (stating that the PLRA does not apply to § 2241 petitions); Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 633-34, 636-37 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that the PLRA does not apply to § 2241 and § 2254 petitions); Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1040-42 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (holding that the PLRA filing fee provisions do not apply to habeas petitions); Davis v. Fechtel, 150 F.3d 486, 490 (5th Cir. 1998) (holding that the PLRA does not apply to § 2241 petitions); McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm'n, 115 F.3d 809, 812 (10th Cir. 1997) (same).

We have not conclusively determined whether, despite the PLRA's inapplicability to habeas petitions, a prisoner is still required to exhaust his administrative remedies in all habeas cases. See Gonzalez v. United States, 959 F.2d 211, 212 (11th Cir. 1992) (holding that prisoner who was denied parole was required to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing § 2241 petition because "[e]xhaustion of administrative remedies is jurisdictional"); see also Irwin v. Hawk, 40 F.3d 347, 349 n. 2 (11th Cir. 1994) (detailing the Bureau of Prisons' administrative remedy procedures and requiring a prisoner to exhaust his claim administratively when seeking injunctive relief). Our sister circuits, however, have consistently held that prisoners must exhaust administrative remedies before habeas relief can be granted. Carmona, 243 F.3d at 630, 632, 634 (addressing § 2241 petition); Fuller v. Rich, 11 F.3d 61, 62 (5th Cir. 1994) (addressing § 2241 petition); Little v. Hopkins, 638 F.2d 953, 953-54 (6th Cir. 1981) (discussing habeas petitions in general); United States ex rel. Sanders v. Arnold, 535 F.2d 848, 850-51 (3rd Cir. 1976) (same); Willis v. Ciccone, 506 F.2d 1011, 1014-15, n. 3 (8th Cir. 1974) (same). We agree with the reasoning of our sister circuits and hold that prisoners seeking habeas relief, including relief pursuant to § 2241, are subject to administrative exhaustion requirements.

Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that Skinner was required to exhaust his administrative remedies and failed to do so. Because his failure to exhaust administrative remedies resolves this appeal, we decline to discuss the merits of Skinner's petition. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of dismissal.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Skinner v. Wiley

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Jan 8, 2004
355 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2004)

holding that "prisoners seeking habeas relief, including relief pursuant to § 2241, are subject to administrative exhaustion requirements"

Summary of this case from Sexton v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons

holding that exhaustion is required "in all habeas cases," including those brought under § 2241

Summary of this case from Sanon v. Hanks

holding that exhaustion is required "in all habeas cases," including those brought under § 2241

Summary of this case from Sanon v. Hanks

holding the PLRA does not apply to habeas petitions brought under § 2241

Summary of this case from Bell v. Copenhaver

holding that exhaustion is required "in all habeas cases," including those brought under § 2241

Summary of this case from Turner v. Morgan

holding that "prisoners seeking habeas relief, including relief pursuant to § 2241, are subject to administrative exhaustion requirements"

Summary of this case from Guilbeault v. Haynes

holding that PLRA does not apply to § 2241 petitions

Summary of this case from Balcar v. Ives

holding administrative exhaustion requirement applicable to prisoners seeking habeas relief, including relief pursuant to § 2241

Summary of this case from Scott v. Eiechenlaub

holding that prisoners seeking habeas relief, including relief pursuant to § 2241, are subject to administrative exhaustion requirements

Summary of this case from Thomas v. Drew

finding that prisoners seeking habeas relief pursuant to § 2241 must exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking habeas relief in federal court

Summary of this case from Becker v. Bureau of Prisons

upholding dismissal of § 2241 petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies

Summary of this case from Battle v. Maldonado

affirming the dismissal of a federal prisoner's § 2241 petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies

Summary of this case from Variste v. Woods

affirming dismissal of federal prisoner's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies

Summary of this case from Darden v. Harmon

affirming dismissal of federal prisoner's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies

Summary of this case from Gilliam v. Purdue

affirming the dismissal of a federal prisoner's § 2241 petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies

Summary of this case from TAYLOR v. GEE

affirming the dismissal of a federal prisoner's § 2241 petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies

Summary of this case from Hayes v. Grayer

agreeing with the reasoning of sister circuits that have held that "prisoners must exhaust administrative remedies before habeas relief can be granted"

Summary of this case from Martin v. Zenk

requiring exhaustion in federal habeas case

Summary of this case from Richard v. Richmond Cnty. Superior Court
Case details for

Skinner v. Wiley

Case Details

Full title:Frank A. SKINNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ron WILEY, Warden…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Date published: Jan 8, 2004

Citations

355 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2004)

Citing Cases

Tristano v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

A § 2241 habeas corpus action is not an action challenging prison conditions, but a challenge to the…

Martins v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

A § 2241 habeas corpus action is not an action challenging prison conditions, but a challenge to the…