UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington)

RICHARD DAVIS, ) ) Petitioner, ) Civil Action No. 5:25-256-DCR ) v. ) ) WARDEN DAVID PAUL, ) MEMORANDUM ORDER ) Respondent. )

*** *** *** ***

Inmate/Petitioner Richard Davis is incarcerated at the Federal Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucky. Proceeding without a lawyer, Davis filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

in which he claims that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) is improperly calculating the date he is eligible for home confinement and displaying a deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, justifying his release from prison. [Record No. 1] Upon initial screening pursuant to

, the Court has determined that the petition should be denied because Davis has not yet fully exhausted his administrative remedies. See Fazzini v. Ne. Ohio Corr. Ctr.,

(6th Cir. 2006). There is a multi-tiered administrative grievance process within the BOP. If a matter cannot be resolved informally via a so-called BP-8 Form, the prisoner must file a BP-9 Administrative Remedy Request Form with the Warden, who has 20 days to respond. See

(a) and 542.18. If the prisoner is not satisfied with the Warden’s response, he may use a BP-10 Form to appeal to the applicable Regional Director who has 30 days to respond. See

and 542.18. And if the prisoner is not satisfied with the Regional Director’s response, he may use a BP-11 Form to appeal to the General Counsel, who has 40 days to respond. See

and 542.18. It is apparent that Davis has not yet fully exhausted his administrative remedies. In fact, he indicates that he did not fully exhaust his administrative remedies [Record No. 1 at 14], and he attaches various documents showing that, to date, he has only proceeded through the BP-9 stage. [See Record No. 1-1.] Although Davis claims that “[r]equiring exhaustion of administrative remedies would cause irreparable harm” [Record No. | at 14], he neither clearly explains why this would be the case nor identifies any legal authority that allows him to bypass the rest of the administrative grievance process and immediately proceed with his § 2241 petition. Where a petitioner’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies is apparent from the face of the pleading itself, sua sponte dismissal is appropriate. See Kenney v. Ormond, No. 17-5889 (6th Cir. May 7, 2018) (affirming this Court’s decision denying a § 2241 petition for failure to exhaust). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Davis’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus [Record No. 1] is DENIED without prejudice. 2. This action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court’s docket. Dated: July 23, 2025.

□□□ =. LAS Arm C □□ a oy | Danny C. Reeves, District Judge Sa KY United States District Court “SE Eastern District of Kentucky

-2-