Perez-Valencia v. Rardin
- Leo Brisbois
- 0:26-cv-02865
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Mayel Perez-Valencia v. Jared Rardin, Judge Brisbois recommended denying habeas relief and dismissing the case for failure to exhaust prison remedies.
Mayel Perez-Valencia, a federal prisoner challenging disciplinary proceedings and the loss of 41 days of good-time credits.
What happened
In Mayel Perez-Valencia v. Jared Rardin, a federal prisoner challenged disciplinary proceedings stemming from cellphone possession and the loss of 41 days of good-time credits. He filed the habeas petition about three years after the sanctions.
The magistrate judge found that Perez-Valencia had not used the Bureau of Prisons’ administrative-review process before filing in federal court. Although the deadline for that process had passed, the judge concluded that waiting too long was not a sufficient reason to excuse exhaustion.
Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommended that the petition be denied and the case dismissed. Because this was a report and recommendation rather than a final district court order, it was not directly appealable, and the parties could file objections within 14 days after being served.
The detailed version
- Perez-Valencia v. Rardin · No. 0:26-cv-02865
- Leo Brisbois
- July 28, 2026
Background
Mayel Perez-Valencia, a federal prisoner, was disciplined in 2023 for possessing a cellphone. The discipline resulted in the loss of 41 days of good-time credits. The Bureau of Prisons provides an administrative-review process for challenging disciplinary sanctions, but Perez-Valencia did not use that process.
About three years after the sanctions, Perez-Valencia filed a petition seeking habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition challenged the legality of the disciplinary proceedings on several grounds. After an initial review, the court ordered Perez-Valencia to explain why the petition should not be denied for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies.
Analysis
Perez-Valencia acknowledged that he had not exhausted the Bureau of Prisons’ administrative-review procedures. He argued that exhaustion should be excused because the time for seeking administrative review had passed.
The court explained that § 2241 does not expressly require exhaustion, but federal courts generally require prisoners to pursue available administrative remedies before seeking habeas relief. Because this exhaustion requirement was created by courts rather than by statute, a court may sometimes decide a § 2241 petition on its merits despite a failure to exhaust. The court found no compelling reason to do so here.
The court reasoned that more than three years had passed since the disciplinary sanctions, giving Perez-Valencia enough time to seek administrative review and, if necessary, later pursue relief in federal court. It also concluded that the expiration of the administrative deadline did not excuse the failure to exhaust. Otherwise, a prisoner could avoid exhaustion simply by waiting until the deadline passed.
Recommendation and procedural status
Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommended that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be denied and that the matter be dismissed. The document is a report and recommendation, not a final order or judgment of the District Court. It states that it is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. Under the cited local rule, a party may file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the recommendation, and a response to objections may be filed within 14 days after service of the objections.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.