Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Phillip Martinez v. Rob Roberts, Warden

804 F.2d 570

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1986-11-18
Topic
international-arbitration

How later courts describe this case

  • noting that difficulties a prisoner may experience in meeting the time requirements for an administrative appeal are properly first brought before the BOP
  • federal inmates are required to exhaust their administrative remedies prior to filing a 2241 petition
  • “Federal prisoners are required to exhaust their federal administrative 19 remedies prior to bringing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court.”
  • “Federal prisoners are required to exhaust 7 their federal administrative remedies prior to bringing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in 8 federal court.”
  • “Federal prisoners are required to 21 exhaust their federal administrative remedies prior to bringing a petition for a writ of habeas 22 corpus in federal court.”
  • “Federal prisoners are 16 required to exhaust their federal administrative remedies prior to bringing a petition for a writ of 17 habeas corpus in federal court.”
  • “Federal 23 prisoners are required to exhaust their federal administrative remedies prior to bringing a petition 24 for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court.”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Phillip Martinez v. Rob Roberts, Warden. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
162 opinions
MARTINEZ v. ROBERTS,804 F.2d 570(9th Cir. 1986)
PHILLIP MARTINEZ, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. ROB ROBERTS, WARDEN,
RESPONDENT-APPELLEE.
No. 85-6564.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted November 4, 1986.fn*
Decided November 18, 1986.
Page 571
Phillip Martinez, Dublin, Cal., for petitioner-appellant.

Barbara C. Stergis, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before BROWNING, Chief Judge, GOODWIN and FARRIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] A federal prisoner appeals the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

[2] Federal prisoners are required to exhaust their federal administrative remedies prior to bringing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court.Tatum v. Christensen,786 F.2d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 1986);Fendler v. United States ParoleCommission,774 F.2d 975, 979 (9th Cir. 1985);Anderson v.Miller,772 F.2d 375, 376-77 (7th Cir. 1985),cert. denied,___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 1210, 89 L.Ed.2d 322 (1986);Chua Han Mow v.United States,730 F.2d 1308, 1313 (9th Cir. 1984),cert.denied,470 U.S. 1031, 105 S.Ct. 1403, 84 L.Ed.2d 790 (1985);Ruviwat v. Smith,701 F.2d 844, 845 (9th Cir. 1983). The Bureau of Prisons has established an administrative remedy by which an inmate in a federal prison may seek review of any aspect of imprisonment. 28 C.F.R. § 542.10 (1984). Difficulties which a prisoner may experience in meeting the time requirements for an administrative appeal are properly first brought before the administrative agency. 28 C.F.R. § 542.15 (1984).

[3] Martinez failed to exhaust the administrative remedies made available by the Bureau of Prisons at the time of the filing of this petition for habeas corpus. The district court, therefore, correctly dismissed this claim.See Tatum v. Christensen,786 F.2d at 964;Green v. Christiansen,732 F.2d 1397, 1400 (9th Cir. 1984);Ruviwat v. Smith,701 F.2d at 845.

[4] Because the record makes clear that Martinez failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, no evidentiary hearing on this issue was or is necessary.See Chua Han Mow v. United States,730 F.2d at 1314.

[5] Finally, there is no reversible error in the manner in which the district court assigned the matter to a magistrate for hearing.

[6] Affirmed.
  1. The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Fed.R. App.P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 3(f). ↩