Smith v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
KENNETH R. SMITH,
Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Respondent.
Case No. 3:25-CV-1544-NJR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Petition for Redress of Grievances Pursuant to
the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution filed by Kenneth R. Smith. (Doc. 1). The Court
construed Smith’s filing as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and
ordered a response. (Doc. 12). For the reasons set forth below, the Petition is now dismissed
without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
Smith is serving a 240-month term of imprisonment in the Federal Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”) at the Federal Correctional Institution in Marion, Illinois (“FCI Marion”). (Doc. 18-2
at ¶ 3). Smith’s current release date is April 4, 2026. 1
On December 12, 2024, Smith’s Unit Team at FCI Marion submitted a referral for
Smith’s placement in a Residential Re-entry Center (“RRC”), also known as a halfway house.
(Id. at ¶ 6). The Unit Team recommended that Smith be placed in an RRC beginning on April
16, 2025. (Id.). The Office of the Residential Re-entry Manager (“RRM”) then evaluated the
request and designated Smith for a halfway house beginning June 10, 2025. (Id. at ¶¶ 7-9).
1 See Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited Jan. 23, 2026).
Case 3:25-cv-01544-NJR Document 21 Filed 01/26/26 Page 1 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 5
Due to a lack of bed space, however, Smith’s placement date was pushed back to February 3,
2026. (Id. at ¶ 9).
Upon learning that his placement date was delayed, Smith filed a BP-9 grievance form
asking the Warden to reinstate his original RRC date of June 10, 2025. (Doc. 18-1 at ¶ 10).
Smith received a response on May 14, 2025, which informed him that the adjustment was due
to a lack of bed space. (Doc. 18-1 at p. 16). Smith then filed a BP-10 appeal, which was denied
on June 26, 2025. (Id. at pp. 17-18). Smith appealed that decision on July 22, 2025, this time to
the Office of General Counsel via the BP-11 form. (Id. at p. 19). Instead of waiting for a
response, Smith filed this action on August 6, 2025. (Doc. 1).
On September 12, 2025, the Office of General Counsel denied Smith’s appeal,
explaining that the final decision as to RRC placement length is “at the discretion of the RRM.
No inmate is entitled to either RRC placement or placement of a particular duration.” (Id. at
p. 20).
With his Petition, Smith asks the Court to order the RRM to immediately assign him
to an RRC. (Doc. 1). Respondent filed an opposition on January 9, 2026 (Doc. 18), and Smith
filed a reply brief on January 20, 2026 (Doc. 20).
DISCUSSION
An inmate may bring a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge the execution of
his sentence. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 490 (1973); Valona v. United States, 138 F.3d 693,
694 (7th Cir. 1998) (“A motion seeking relief on grounds concerning the execution but not the
validity of the conviction and sentence—for example, a motion contending that the prison
unlawfully deprived a prisoner of good time credits . . . falls into the domain of § 2241.”). “A
petition for a writ of habeas corpus is the proper route ‘[i]f the prisoner is seeking what can
Case 3:25-cv-01544-NJR Document 21 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 5
fairly be described as a quantum change in the level of custody—whether outright freedom,
or freedom subject to the limited reporting and financial constraints of bond or parole or
probation.’” Williams v. Lillard, No. 25-1125-DWD, 2025 WL 1880039, at *1 (S.D. Ill. June 27,
2025) (quoting Graham v. Broglin, 922 F.2d 379, 381 (7th Cir. 1991)). But if the prisoner “is
seeking a different program or location or environment, then he is challenging the conditions
rather than the fact of confinement and his remedy is under civil rights law.” Id.
Here, Smith is not challenging the fact or duration of his confinement, nor does he
seek quicker or immediate release. Instead, he argues he is entitled to placement in an RRC.
This is not cognizable in a § 2241 petition. “After a district court sentences a federal offender,
the Attorney General, through the BOP, has the responsibility for administering the
sentence.” United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 335 (1992). The BOP then has “plenary control”
over placement of the inmate, subject only to statutory limits. Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S.
319, 331 (2011); United States v. Saunders, 986 F.3d 1076, 1078 (7th Cir. 2021). “This includes
the decision whether to house an inmate in a prison or in home confinement, 18 U.S.C.
§ 3624(c)(2), and the Court has no jurisdiction to review that decision.” Decker v. Sproul, No.
3:24-CV-02211-JPG, 2025 WL 438832, at *2 (S.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2025) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)
(“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a designation of a place of imprisonment
under this subsection is not reviewable by any court.”)). Even if the Court had discretion to
review the BOP’s decision, “these administrative issues are the exact kind of minutia that
executive agencies, such as the Bureau of Prisons, are best equipped, experienced, and
empowered to administer.” Id.
The Seventh Circuit has held that such claims must instead be brought under the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702 (“APA”). See Staadt v. Bezy, 119 F. App’x 784,
Case 3:25-cv-01544-NJR Document 21 Filed 01/26/26 Page 3 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 4 of 5
785 (7th Cir. 2004) (“[A] prisoner may not use § 2241 to claim that the BOP should consider
placing him in a [Community Corrections Center]. . . . Such a claim is a challenge to the rules
affecting the conditions of custody, and federal prisoners must challenge those rules under
the Administrative Procedure Act.”); see also Richmond v. Scibana, 387 F.3d 602, 606 (7th Cir.
2004) (“§ 2241 does not furnish the appropriate means to contest the Bureau’s understanding
of § 3624(c).”).
As pointed out by Respondent, Smith may have intended to bring this action under
the APA instead of § 2241. Smith’s petition does not mention § 2241 or the words “habeas
corpus.” He also opposes the pending Motion to Substitute, in which the Bureau of Prisons
seeks to substitute the Warden of FCI Marion as the Respondent, because Smith wants the
Court to order the RRM to move Smith to an RRC. Respondent argues that this indicates
Smith actually intended to bring the action under the APA.
Even if this were true, Smith’s claim would still fail because he did not exhaust his
administrative remedies before filing suit. See Richmond, 387 F.3d at 606. To exhaust
administrative remedies, a federal prisoner must first file an informal complaint with
institution staff. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.13(a). If the complaint is not resolved informally, a
prisoner must file an administrative remedy request on a BP-9 form at the institution where
he is incarcerated. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(a). If the prisoner is unsatisfied with the warden’s
response to his BP-9, he may submit an appeal to the Regional Director on a BP-10 form
within 20 days. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.15(a). If the prisoner is unsatisfied with the Regional
Director’s response, he may submit an appeal on a BP-11 form to the BOP’s Office of General
Counsel within 30 days. Id. The General Counsel has 40 days to issue a decision. 28 C.F.R.
§ 542.18. If an inmate does not receive a response within the allotted time, he may consider
Case 3:25-cv-01544-NJR Document 21 Filed 01/26/26 Page 4 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 5 of 5
the absence of a response to be a denial at that level. Id.
Smith did not wait for a final decision on his BP-11 appeal from the General Counsel
before filing his Petition in this Court. He submitted the appeal on July 22, 2025, and initiated
this action only 15 days later. Because Smith did not complete the exhaustion process before
filing suit, he cannot obtain relief in this Court. See Robinson v. Sherrod, 631 F.3d 839, 843 (7th
Cir. 2011) (federal prisoner’s failure to exhaust the BOP’s administrative remedies precluded
relief, whether under § 2241 or the Administrative Procedure Act). 2
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Petition for Redress of Grievances Pursuant to the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution filed by Kenneth R. Smith (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED
without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	January 26, 2026
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge
2 It remains unclear whether Smith intended to bring this action under habeas corpus law or the APA.
Nevertheless, because the Court initially reviewed this case under § 2241, it will retain that designation for filing
fee purposes. Accordingly, Respondent’s Motion to Substitute Party (Doc. 15) is GRANTED, and Joseph Wadas
is SUBSTITUTED as Respondent.
Case 3:25-cv-01544-NJR Document 21 Filed 01/26/26 Page 5 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>