Goldenberg v. Miami FCI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 25-cv-23399-BLOOM
LOUIS GOLDENBERG,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN HEUETT,
Respondent.
________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Petitioner Louis Goldenberg’s (“Petitioner”) pro
se Reconsideration Motion to Court’s Order Denying 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition (“Motion”). ECF
No. [9]. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) — or in the alternative, Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) — Petitioner seeks reconsideration of this Court’s order denying his
Petition due to his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. For the following reasons, the
Motion is DENIED.
“The only grounds for granting a Rule 59 motion are newly-discovered evidence or
manifest errors of law or fact.” PBT Real Estate, LLC v. Town of Palm Beach, 988 F.3d 1274,
1287 (11th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted and alteration adopted). “A Rule 59(e) motion cannot be
used to relitigate old matters, raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior
to the entry of judgment.” Id. (citation omitted and alterations adopted).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides for relief from final judgments or orders in
limited circumstances. Imperato v. Hartford Ins. Co., 803 F. App’x 229, 230 (11th Cir. 2020).
Rule 60(b)(1) provides that the court may grant relief from an order due to “mistake, inadvertence,
Case 1:25-cv-23399-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2026 Page 1 of 5

Case No. 25-cv-23399-BLOOM
2
surprise, or excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). “But a Rule 60(b) motion cannot be used
to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to
the entry of judgment.” Terrell v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 98 F.4th 1343, 1357 (11th Cir.
2024) (quotations omitted). Rather, it “must demonstrate why the court should reconsider its prior
decision and set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its
prior decision.” Socialist Workers Party v. Leahy, 957 F. Supp. 1262, 1263 (S.D. Fla. 1997)
(quotation omitted).
On December 30, 2025, this Court denied Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition without prejudice,
finding that the Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. ECF No. [8] at 5 (citing
Davis v. Warden, FCC Coleman-USP I, 661 F. App’x 561, 562-63 (11th Cir. 2016) (“the district
court did not err by dismissing Davis’s § 2241 petition without prejudice based on its determination
that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. . . . However, because the failure to exhaust
administrative remedies is no longer a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit, we construe the district
court’s dismissal as a denial”).
In his Motion, Petitioner argues: (1) the Court plainly erred by not addressing Petitioner’s
statutory construction futility argument, particularly where the Bureau of Prisons reliance on
program statement § 5410.01 renders administrative remedies futile; and (2) Petitioner has now
fully exhausted administrative remedies during the pendency of this case, such that the Court
should reach the merits and dispose of the petition on the pleadings. See ECF No. [9] at 3-5.
First, Petitioner argues the Court plainly erred by not addressing Petitioner’s statutory
construction futility argument. Id. at 3. The Court did consider Petitioner’s argument but found it
unpersuasive. See ECF No. [8] at 5. As this Court explained:
Petitioner’s futility argument is unpersuasive. In the Eleventh Circuit, “there are
grounds for doubt that a futility exception is available on a § 2241 petition[.]”
Case 1:25-cv-23399-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2026 Page 2 of 5

Case No. 25-cv-23399-BLOOM
3
Tankersley v. Fisher, No. 08-CV-382-MCR/EMT, 2008 WL 4371797, at *3 (N.D.
Fla. Sept. 22, 2008). The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that there is no futility
exception applicable to the exhaustion requirement in a § 2241 proceeding. McGee
v. Warden, FDC Miami, 487 F. App’x 516, 518 (11th Cir. 2012) (rejecting
argument that futility exception applicable to exhaustion prior to bringing a § 2254
petition is applicable to exhaustion requirement for a § 2241 petition); Moore v.
Colon, No. 20-22032-CV, 2020 WL 5868179, at *4 (S.D. Fla. July 27, 2020),
report and recommendation adopted, No. 20-22032-CIV, 2020 WL 5848687 (S.D.
Fla. Sept. 30, 2020) (finding argument that exhaustion would be futile inapplicable
to § 2241 cases).
Id. at 5-6. In the Motion, Petitioner has not presented sufficiently compelling legal authority to
persuade this Court to reconsider and reverse its prior order. Substantial doubt exists regarding the
availability of a futility exception to the administrative exhaustion requirement in the Eleventh
Circuit. See Gonzalez-Velez v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Low, No. 5:22-CV-509-WFJ-PRL, 2023
WL 3584113, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 22, 2023) (“[A]n ‘exception’ to administrative exhaustion
based on futility in the § 2241 setting has not been adopted by the Eleventh Circuit.” (citation
omitted)); Tankersley v. Fisher, No. 08-CV-382-MCR/EMT, 2008 WL 4371797, at *3 (N.D. Fla.
Sept. 22, 2008) (“[T]here are grounds for doubt that a futility exception is available on a § 2241
petition[.]”).
Although Petitioner cites authority from other circuits supporting his proposition, see
Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 239 n.2 (3d Cir. 2005), he has failed to identify
binding precedent — from either the Eleventh Circuit or the Supreme Court — that would compel
this Court to excuse his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. This is especially true when
Respondents assert Petitioner’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies as a defense. See
Santiago-Lugo v. Warden, 785 F.3d 467, 475 (11th Cir. 2015) (“The exhaustion requirement is
still a requirement; it’s just not a jurisdictional one. . . . And because exhaustion is non-
jurisdictional, even when the defense has been preserved and asserted by the respondent
throughout the proceeding, a court may skip over the exhaustion issue if it is easier to deny (not
Case 1:25-cv-23399-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2026 Page 3 of 5

Case No. 25-cv-23399-BLOOM
4
grant, of course, but deny) the petition on the merits without reaching the exhaustion question.”
(emphasis added)). Accordingly, because the exhaustion defense was asserted by the Respondent,
see ECF No. [6] at 3-6, this Court may not skip over the exhaustion issue to grant the Petition on
the merits. As Petitioner conceded that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to
bringing suit, ECF No. [1-1] at 4, his Petition was properly “denied without prejudice for failure
to exhaust administrative remedies.” ECF No. [8] at 5.
Second, Petitioner argues that he has now fully exhausted administrative remedies during
the pendency of this case, such that the Court should reach the merits and dispose of the petition
on the pleadings. See ECF No. [9] at 5. However, Petitioner was required to exhaust administrative
remedies prior to filing his habeas petition in district court. See Krist v. Eichenlaub, 386 F. App’x
920, 923 (11th Cir. 2010) (“Only after a prisoner exhausts these administrative remedies may he
file for habeas relief in district court.” (citing United States v. Herrera, 931 F.2d 761, 764 (11th
Cir. 1991))). Exhaustion after filing a petition is not proper exhaustion. See Martin v. Zenk, 244 F.
App’x 974, 978 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming dismissal of § 2241 petition for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies where petitioner commenced, but did not complete, administrative
remedy process before filing petition); Krist, 386 F. App’x at 923 (same). Therefore, the Petition
was properly dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing
his Petition.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner’s Reconsideration Motion
to Court’s Order Denying 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition, ECF No. [9], is DENIED.
Case 1:25-cv-23399-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2026 Page 4 of 5

Case No. 25-cv-23399-BLOOM
5
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on February 12, 2026.
________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Louis Goldenberg, Pro Se
70137-066
Miami FCI
Federal Correctional Institution
Inmate Mail/Parcels
Post Office Box 779800
Miami, FL 33177
Noticing 2241/Bivens US Attorney
Email: usafls-2255@usdoj.gov
Case 1:25-cv-23399-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2026 Page 5 of 5