Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brestle v. Hastings

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Brunswick Division

December 29, 2014

GARY CHARLES BRESTLE, Petitioner,
v.
SUZANNE R. HASTINGS, Warden, Respondent.

ORDER

LISA GODBEY WOOD, District Judge.

After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which Petitioner Gary Brestle ("Brestle" filed Objections. Respondent filed a Response, and Brestle filed a Reply. In his Objections, Brestle fails to set forth any facts which indicate that his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition was brought properly in this Court. Brestle has submitted documentation, which he believes shows that he exhausted his administrative remedies prior to the filing of this cause of action. A review of this documentation reveals that Brestle filed administrative remedies concerning the conditions of his confinement. As the Magistrate Judge informed Brestle, section 2241 is not the proper vehicle to bring conditions of confinement claims.

To the extent Brestle raised a claim in an administrative remedy which could potentially be cognizable pursuant to § 2241, i.e., that he should be given a credit against his sentence, there is no evidence that he exhausted that claim. Brestle mentions this requested relief in passing in an administrative remedy filed at the institutional level. (Doc. No. 35, pp. 19-20. However, Brestle does not make this reference in any other remedy he submitted, and there is a three-step procedure in place for inmates to satisfy the grievance procedure. Ramirez v. Haynes, CV212-190, Doc. Nos. 12, 14 (S.D. Ga. (describing the three-step process inmates in Bureau of Prisons' institutions must complete prior to filing a cause of action in federal court. Even if Plaintiff set forth a claim cognizable pursuant to § 2241, he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this cause of action.

Brestle also filed a motion for transfer, and Respondent filed a Response. To the extent Brestle seeks to have claims of an alleged agreement between him and the Government transferred, Brestle's motion is DENIED. Should Brestle wish to pursue such a claim, he should file the appropriate pleading in the court of conviction.

Brestle has also filed a request for a certificate of appealability. Respondent responded. Brestle's request is DENIED, as a certificate of appealability is not issued in an action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.[1]

Brestle's Objections are overruled. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted as the opinion of the Court. Brestle's petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, is DISMISSED, without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is authorized to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal.

SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.