UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION LONDON

KENNETH L. THOMPSON, Petitioner, Civil Action No. 6:25-219-KKC v. J. HENSLEY, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Respondent. *** *** *** *** Kenneth L. Thompson is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Manchester, Kentucky. Proceeding pro se, Thompson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

in which he claims that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) is improperly failing to award him certain time credits and, thus, erroneously calculating his release date. [R. 1]. This matter is now before the Court on initial screening pursuant to

. See Alexander v. Northern Bureau of Prisons,

(6th Cir. 2011). The Court will deny Thompson’s petition without prejudice because it is plainly apparent from the face of his submission that he has not yet fully exhausted his administrative remedies. See Settle v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 16-5279,

, at *2 (6th Cir. Sept. 20, 2017). Under the law, 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. 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. Here, it is plainly apparent that Thompson has not yet fully exhausted his administrative remedies. Indeed, Thompson affirmatively indicates that he has not filed a grievance or pursued

administrative remedies with the BOP. [See R. 1 at 2-4]. And although Thompson repeatedly claims that completing the exhaustion process “would be futile,” he neither clearly explains why this would be the case nor correctly identifies binding legal authority that allows him to bypass the administrative grievance process and immediately proceed with his § 2241 petition. In this situation, 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). Ultimately, this result will allow Thompson to promptly raise the matter at hand with his Warden and, if necessary, the applicable BOP Regional Director and the BOP’s General

Counsel before potentially returning to federal court and filing a new civil action. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. Thompson’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

[R. 1] is DENIED without prejudice. If necessary, Thompson may file a new habeas petition regarding the matter raised once he has fully exhausted his administrative remedies; 2. This action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court’s docket; and 3. The Court will enter a corresponding Judgment.

2 This 11" day of December, 2025.

SS Signed By: Way Karen K. Caldwell AKC ““ams United States District Judge