From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. O'Brien

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Jun 6, 1986
792 F.2d 986 (10th Cir. 1986)

Summary

noting that "judicial intervention is usually deferred until administrative remedies have been exhausted"

Summary of this case from Thornton v. Daniels

Opinion

No. 86-1020.

June 6, 1986.

Adrian C. Williams, pro se.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.

Before LOGAN and SETH, Circuit Judges.


In accordance with 10th Cir.R. 9(e) and Fed.R.App.P. 34(a), this appeal came on for consideration on the briefs and record on appeal.

This is a renewed application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal after the district court dismissed appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Appellant has challenged the computation of his release date. In his petition, he alleged that he had completed service of his federal sentence as of an unspecified date in 1983 at which time appellee failed to discharge him.

By statute, responsibility for the computation of the service of a sentence is an administrative responsibility conferred upon the attorney general acting through the Bureau of Prisons. 18 U.S.C. § 3568. For this reason, and because the agency is in a superior position to investigate the facts, judicial intervention is usually deferred until administrative remedies have been exhausted. Smoake v. Willingham, 359 F.2d 386 (10th Cir. 1966); United States v. Steel, 400 F. Supp. 39 (E.D.Okla. 1975).

The Bureau of Prisons has established an administrative procedure through which an inmate may seek review of complaints relating to any aspect of his imprisonment. 28 C.F.R. § 542.10 (1985). Appellant admitted that he commenced this action without complying with this procedure. He has no alternative but to comply.

Appellant can make no rational argument on the law or facts that would entitle him to relief. See Phillips v. Carey, 638 F.2d 207 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 985, 101 S.Ct. 1524, 67 L.Ed.2d 821 (1981).

Appellant's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED.


Summaries of

Williams v. O'Brien

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Jun 6, 1986
792 F.2d 986 (10th Cir. 1986)

noting that "judicial intervention is usually deferred until administrative remedies have been exhausted"

Summary of this case from Thornton v. Daniels

noting that "judicial intervention is usually deferred until administrative remedies have been exhausted"

Summary of this case from Daybell v. Davis

noting that "judicial intervention is usually deferred until administrative remedies have been exhausted"

Summary of this case from Garza v. Davis

analyzing exhaustion requirement under statutory predecessor of § 3585(b)

Summary of this case from Reed v. U.S.

concerning a § 2241 petition

Summary of this case from Montez v. McKinna

requiring exhaustion concerning a § 2241 petition

Summary of this case from Holly v. Drake

explaining that "responsibility for the computation of the service of a sentence is an administrative responsibility conferred upon the attorney general acting through the Bureau of Prisons" which means "the agency is in a superior position to investigate the facts" and therefore "judicial intervention is usually deferred until administrative remedies have been exhausted"

Summary of this case from United States v. Waters

requiring exhaustion concerning a § 2241 petition

Summary of this case from Phipps v. Woods

requiring exhaustion concerning a § 2241 petition

Summary of this case from Burroughs v. Emberton

requiring exhaustion concerning a § 2241 petition

Summary of this case from Reed v. Ryals

concerning a § 2241 petition

Summary of this case from Seadin v. Raimisch

dismissing habeas petition brought pursuant to § 2241 for failure to exhaust Bureau of Prisons' administrative remedies regarding sentence computation

Summary of this case from Abdussamadi v. Stewart

analyzing exhaustion requirement under statutory predecessor of § 3585(b)

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Jauregui

analyzing exhaustion requirement under statutory predecessor of § 3585(b)

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Maldonado

stating that by statute, "responsibility for the computation of the service of a sentence is an administrative responsibility conferred upon the attorney general acting through the Bureau of Prisons."

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Romero-Corrales

applying exhaustion requirement to federal prisoner challenging the execution of his sentence

Summary of this case from Gonzales v. Terrell

analyzing exhaustion requirement in challenge to the computation of an inmate's release date

Summary of this case from Freeman v. Ledezma

concerning a § 2241 petition filed by a state prisoner

Summary of this case from Harris v. Fox

concerning a § 2241 petition filed by a state prisoner

Summary of this case from Nicholas v. Hudson

concerning a § 2241 petition filed by a state prisoner

Summary of this case from Johnson v. Hudson

concerning a § 2241 petition filed by a state prisoner

Summary of this case from Martin v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority
Case details for

Williams v. O'Brien

Case Details

Full title:ADRIAN C. WILLIAMS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. JERRY O'BRIEN…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

Date published: Jun 6, 1986

Citations

792 F.2d 986 (10th Cir. 1986)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Vigil

LAW REGARDING CHALLENGING THE BOP'S CALCULATION OF SENTENCE "By statute, responsibility for the computation…

Searcy v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

The Federal Bureau of Prisons has established an administrative procedure whereby a federal inmate may seek…