Toochukwu Okorie v. Warden of FCI-Schuylkill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TOOCHUKWU OKORIE, : Petitioner : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-1953 V. : (JUDGE MANNION) WARDEN OF FCI-SCHUYLKILL, _ : Respondent : MEMORANDUM Presently before the court is a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241 to challenge the United States Bureau of Prisons’ enforcement of a restitution payment plan. The petition will be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. l. BACKGROUND Petitioner, Toochukwu Okorie, is incarcerated in Schuylkill Federal Correctional Institution (“FCl-Schuylkill’) serving a federal criminal sentence that requires him to pay restitution. (Doc. 1). He filed the instant petition on October 16, 2025, and the court received and docketed ‘nis petition on October 16, 2025. (Doc. 1). Okorie’s petition asserts thet the BOP has improperly enrolled him in its Inmate Financial Responsivility Program (“IFRP”) and compelled him to make rasititution payments through the program. (/d.)

Respondent responded to the petition on December 5, 2025, arguing that it should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administratively or alternatively denied on its merits. (Doc. 7). Okorie has not filed a reply brief, and the deadline for doing so has expired under the Local Rules. The petition is accordingly ripe for review. ll. | DISCUSSION This case will be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Although there is no explicit statutory exhaustion requirement for Section 2241 habeas petitions, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has consistently held that exhaustion applies to such claims.

Callwood v. Enos, 230 F.3d 627, 634 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing Schandelmeier v. Cunningham, 819 F.2d 52, 53 (3d Cir. 1986)); Moscato v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 98 F.3d 757, 760 (3d Cir. 1996). Exhaustion allows the agency to develop a factual record and apply its expertise, conserves judicial resources, and provides agencies the opportunity to “correct their own errors” thereby fostering “administrative autonomy.” /d. at 761-62. The BOP has an internal system through which prisoners can request review of nearly any aspect of their imprisonment. See 28 C.F.R. §§542.10-.19. The process begins with an informal request to staff and progresses to formal review by the warden, appeal with the regional director, and—ultimately—final appeal to the BOP’s central office. Id. §§542.13-.15. No request is considered fully exhausted until reviewed by the central office. /d. §542.15(a).

Exhaustion is the rule in most cases, and failure to exhaust will generally preclude habeas review. Moscato, 98 F.3d at 761. Only in rare circumstances is exhaustion of administrative remedies not required. For example, exhaustion is unnecessary if the issue presented is one that consists purely of statutory construction. Vasquez v. Strada, 684 F.3d 431, 433-34 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Bradshaw v. Carlson, 682 F.2d 1050, 1052 (3d Cir. 1981)). Exhaustion is likewise not required when it would be futile. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 516 n.7 (1982).

Here, respondent has produced evidence showing that Okorie failed to exhaust administrative remedies because his BOP records indicate that he has not filed any administrative remedy requests while serving his sentence. (Doc. 7-2; Doc. 7-4). Okorie has not contested this assertion through any contrary evidence or argument. Dismissal of this case is therefore appropriate because Okorie failed to exhaust administrative remedies and he has not provided any valid basis to excuse the failure to exhaust. lll. © CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the court will dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. An appropriate order shall issue.

Mannion United States District Judge Dated: /Ac/2é 25-1953-01 (- /