Soriano v. Jenkins
- William Orrick
- 3:18-cv-06648
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Soriano v. Jenkins, Judge Orrick dismissed Soriano’s federal prison petition for failing to exhaust administrative remedies and rejecting her futility argument.
Shirley Soriano, whose federal habeas petition challenging a prison disciplinary decision was dismissed, and W. Z. Jenkins, in whose favor judgment was entered.
What happened
Shirley Soriano, a federal prisoner, challenged a prison disciplinary decision in Soriano v. Jenkins. She had been found guilty of violating rules about mail and telephone use but did not appeal the decision through the prison’s administrative process.
Soriano argued that this process should be excused because it would delay her transfer to a halfway house. The court rejected that argument, finding that the review could have finished before the expected transfer and that halfway-house placement was discretionary.
The court granted the motion to dismiss, dismissed the petition, entered judgment for the respondent, and closed the case. Judge William H. Orrick did not reach the merits of Soriano’s challenge to the disciplinary decision.
The detailed version
- Soriano v. Jenkins · No. 3:18-cv-06648
- William Orrick
- Dec. 6, 2019
Background
Shirley Soriano filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal law allowing a person in custody to challenge custody that allegedly violates federal law or the Constitution. She was housed at FCI-Dublin and was serving a 30-month sentence for convictions under 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b)(2)(A), concerning illegal payments for health-care referrals. Her projected release date was October 28, 2019.
In September 2018, prison officials found Soriano guilty of violating rules concerning the use of mail and the telephone. She was told that she could appeal the disciplinary decision, but she did not do so. She said she feared that using the administrative appeal process would delay her transfer to a halfway house by two weeks. By June 5, 2019, she had been transferred from FCI-Dublin to a halfway house in Los Angeles.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
The court stated that Soriano had not exhausted her administrative remedies. Exhaustion means completing the available administrative review process before asking a court for relief. Although § 2241 does not itself require exhaustion before filing, the Ninth Circuit generally requires habeas petitioners to exhaust available judicial and administrative remedies as a prudential matter.
The court recognized exceptions when administrative remedies are inadequate, immediate judicial relief is needed to prevent irreparable harm, an administrative appeal would be futile, or a substantial constitutional question is presented. Soriano relied on futility, arguing that the process would take more than five months and that she would likely be transferred before it ended.
The court rejected that argument. It reasoned that, even accepting Soriano’s estimate, the administrative review would have been completed on February 21, 2019—before the projected halfway-house transfer dates. The court also noted that placement in a residential reentry center or halfway house is discretionary and generally not subject to judicial review. Soriano therefore had not shown that the process would be futile, that it would not provide a genuine opportunity for adequate relief, that irreparable injury would result, or that she had raised a substantial constitutional question.
Disposition
The court granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition. It dismissed the petition, directed the Clerk to terminate pending motions, entered judgment in favor of the respondent, and closed the file. Because the dismissal rested on failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the court did not decide whether the underlying disciplinary decision was lawful.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.