Johnson Ogunlana v. Warden Allenwood Fci Low

DLD-113 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 26-1064
___________
JOHNSON OGUNLANA,
Appellant
v.
WARDEN ALLENWOOD FCI LOW
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-00783)
Chief District Judge: Honorable Matthew W. Brann
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
April 16, 2026
Before: RESTREPO, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed May 4, 2026)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Johnson Ogunlana appeals pro se and in forma pauperis from the District Court’s
order denying his habeas petition. We will affirm.
Ogunlana is nearing the end of the six-year federal prison sentence he received
after pleading guilty in the District of Maryland to several counts of aggravated identity
theft and other crimes. He currently is confined at the Federal Correctional Institution,
Allenwood Low in White Deer, Pennsylvania, with a projected release date of May 5,
2026. One year earlier, Ogunlana filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
challenging the Bureau of Prison’s refusal to transfer him to a halfway house for
community-based treatment through the Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP). The
BOP rejoined that Ogunlana is ineligible for RDAP because he is subject to an
immigration detainer and will be processed for removal from the United States following
his release from prison.
Ogunlana abandoned his RDAP arguments in his traverse, arguing instead—for
the first time—that the BOP violated the Second Chance Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-
199, 122 Stat. 657 (2008), and bureau policy by refusing to consider him for transfer to
prerelease custody due to his immigration status. The District Court concluded that
Ogunlana waived that claim by waiting until his reply to raise it, and that he failed to
exhaust his remedies by not first presenting it to BOP administrators; the court was not

-- 2 of 3 --

3
persuaded by his conclusory argument that it would be futile to require exhaustion under
the circumstances. Ogunlana appeals and moves for the appointment of counsel.
We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1291, and we exercise plenary review over
the District Court’s legal conclusions. See Reese v. Warden Phila. FDC, 904 F.3d 244,
246 (3d Cir. 2018). We may summarily affirm if an appeal does not present a substantial
question. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.
Ogunlana’s appeal does not raise a substantial question. It is well settled that
federal prisoners generally must avail themselves of available administrative remedies
before they may pursue relief in court under Section 2241. See Moscato v. BOP, 98 F.3d
757, 760 (3d Cir. 1996); see also Callwood v. Enos, 230 F.3d 627, 634 (3d Cir. 2000)
(“[W]e have consistently applied an exhaustion requirement to claims brought under
§ 2241.”). Ogunlana does not deny that he never presented his Second Chance Act
challenge to the BOP, and his undeveloped argument that his oversight should be excused
on grounds of futility is unavailing. As the District Court aptly noted, Ogunlana
successfully exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to his now-abandoned
RDAP challenge, but he offered no compelling reason why he could not do the same with
his belated claim. Accordingly, we deny his motion for appointment of counsel, and we
will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.

-- 3 of 3 --