Saunders v. Cox
Saunders v. Cox
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANDRE M. SAUNDERS, 4:20-CV-04208-LLP
Petitioner,
vs. ORDER FOR SERVICE AND J.W. COX, IN HIS CAPACITY AS TO SHOW CAUSE WARDEN OF YANKTON FEDERAL PRISON CAMP;
Respondent.
Petitioner Andre M. Saunders, an inmate at the Yankton Federal Prison Camp, in Yankton, South Dakota, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court directs the petition in this case be served and that a response be filed. A § 2241 petitioner must exhaust administrative remedies before filing. Mathena v. United States,
577 F.3d 943, 946(8th Cir. 2009); Thompson, 297 Fed. Appx. at 562; United States v. Chappel,
208 F.3d 1069(8th Cir. 2000). In his submissions, Mr. Saunders states he is still waiting for a response on his request for administrative remedy. Therefore, the parties will be directed to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Petitioner shall pay the $5.00 filing fee by January 19, 2021.
(2) the Clerk of Court shall serve upon respondent and the United States Attorney for the District of South Dakota a copy of the petition and this order; (3) That both respondent and Mr. Saunders shall show cause no later than January 19, 2021, why Mr. Saunder’s petition should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Mr. Saunders is notified that failure to respond to the above order to show cause may result in dismissal of his petition in this court. DATED this 28th day of December, 2020. BY THE COURT: Vrerim 2, Daffy VERONICA L. DUFFY United States Magistrate Judge
Reference
- Status
- Unknown