United States District Court, C.D. California
Present: The Honorable Kenly Kiya Kato, United States
(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why This Action Should Not
Be Dismissed For Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies
Ivan Maldonado-Duran (“Petitioner”) has filed a
pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(“Petition”) by a Person in State Custody
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Section
2241”). ECF Docket No. (“dkt.”) 1. However,
it appears Petitioner has failed to fully exhaust his
administrative remedies. The Court thus orders Petitioner to
show cause why this action should not be dismissed for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
October 19, 2015, Petitioner, an inmate at Victorville II
Federal Correctional Institution, was convicted of conspiracy
to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and conspiracy to possess
firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(o) in the Western District
of Washington. 2:14-cr-0096-JCC, Dkt. 249. Petitioner was
sentenced to a term of 36 months. Id.
August 31, 2016, Petitioner was issued a disciplinary
infraction, Incident Report # 2923623, by the Taft Private
Correctional Institution, which resulted in the withholding
of 27-days of good time credit. Dkt. 1, Pet. at 3, 7.
September 1, 2016, Petitioner filed a first appeal to the
Federal Bureau of Prisons Western Regional Office and Federal
Bureau of Prisons Central Office. Id. at 3.
October 1, 2016, Petitioner filed a second appeal to the
Federal Bureau of Prisons Central Office. Id. at 4.
April 5, 2017, Petitioner constructively filed the instant
Petition. Id. at 1. Petitioner challenges the
withholding of good time credit based on the disciplinary
infraction issued on August 31, 2016. Id. at 2.
Petitioner sets forth the following ground for relief:
“The Taft Private Correctional Institution disallowed
Good Time Credit of 27 days for and Incident Report for
violation of Prison policy. The Taft Private Correctional
Institutional Staff do not have the authority to disallow
Good Time Credit.” Id. at 7.