Roberts v. Cox

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TIMOTHY M. ROBERTS,
Petitioner,
vs.
J.W. COX, in his capacity as Warden of
Yankton Federal Prison Camp,
Respondent.
4:20-CV-04187-KES
ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS AND
ORDERING RESPONDENT TO
RESPOND TO THE MERITS OF
PETITIONER’S PETITION
Petitioner, Timothy M. Roberts, brings this pro se petition for writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Docket 1. The petition was assigned to
a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and this
court’s October 16, 2014, standing order.
Respondent moves to dismiss Roberts’s petition for his alleged failure to
exhaust administrative remedies. Docket 14. The Magistrate Judge entered a
report and recommendation (Docket 19) recommending Roberts’s petition be
dismissed without prejudice to allow him to exhaust his administrative
remedies. Docket 19 at 6. Roberts timely filed his objections. Docket 21.
Additionally, on March 16, 2021, the Central Office of the Bureau of Prisons
(BOP) officially denied Roberts’s request for redemption of his earned time
credits. Docket 27-1 at 11.
Case 4:20-cv-04187-KES Document 33 Filed 05/11/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

2
The court’s review of the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation
is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The court reviews de novo any objections to the magistrate judge’s
recommendations with respect to dispositive matters that are timely made and
specific. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). In conducting its de
novo review, this court may then “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); United States v. Craft, 30 F.3d 1044, 1045 (8th Cir. 1994).
Generally, only after a prisoner exhausts the administrative remedies with the
Bureau of Prisons may a prisoner seek judicial review of sentencing credit
determinations. See United States v. Tindall, 455 F.3d 885, 888 (8th Cir. 2006)
(“Prisoners are entitled to administrative review of the computation of their
credits, 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.10-542.16, and after properly exhausting these
administrative remedies, an inmate may seek judicial review through filing a
habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.”). Once the BOP’s Central
Office has rendered a decision on a BP-11 appeal, the administrative process is
fully exhausted. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.14-542.15 (2021).
The Magistrate Judge stated that “[t]his case presents a number of
factual disputes best served by creating a complete administrative record. That
can only be done if Mr. Roberts is required to finish out the administrative
exhaustion process. The court concludes he should be required to do so.”
Docket 19 at 6. The Magistrate Judge also recommended that Roberts’s motion
for an extension (Docket 13) be denied as moot. Id. Shortly before the
Case 4:20-cv-04187-KES Document 33 Filed 05/11/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

3
Magistrate Judge issued the report and recommendation, Roberts received the
response to his BP-10 appeal. Docket 12-1 at 3. The BOP’s Central Office
officially denied his BP-11 appeal on March 16, 2021. Docket 27-1 at 11.
When the Magistrate Judge issued the report and recommendation, Roberts
had not exhausted his administrative remedies. He has now done so. As a
result, the court adopts in part the report and recommendation and denies as
moot Roberts’s motion for an extension. This court does not, however, adopt
the portion of the report and recommendation that recommends dismissal of
his petition. Respondent must respond to Roberts’s claims on the merits within
21 days of the entry of this order.
Thus, it is ORDERED:
1. That respondent’s motion to dismiss (Docket 14) is denied.
2. That the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation (Docket 19) is
adopted in part and denied in part. This court adopts the
recommendation that Roberts’s motion for an extension (Docket 13)
be denied as moot and refuses to adopt the recommendation that
Roberts’s petition be dismissed.
3. That Roberts’s objections (Docket 21) are overruled.
Case 4:20-cv-04187-KES Document 33 Filed 05/11/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

4
4. That respondent must respond to the merits of Roberts’s petition
within 21 days of the entry of this order. The Magistrate Judge will
address the merits of Roberts’s claims.
Dated May 11, 2021
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:20-cv-04187-KES Document 33 Filed 05/11/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>