Cox v. Greene

JASON COX,
V.
J. GREENE,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Petitioner 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-1039
(JUDGE MANNION)
Respondent
MEMORANDUM
Presently before the court is a prose petition for writ of habeas corpus
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241 to challenge the United States Bureau of
Prisons' refusal to award time credits towards a federal sentence under the
First Step Act ("FSA"). The petition will be dismissed for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner, 	Jason 	Cox, 	is 	incarcerated 	in 	Allenwood 	Federal
Correctional 	Institution 	("FCI-Allenwood") 	serving 	a 	federal 	criminal
sentence. He filed the instant petition on June 4, 2025, and the court received
and 	docketed 	his 	petition 	on 	June 	10, 	2025. 	(Doc. 	1). 	Cox's 	petition
challenges the United States Bureau of Prisons' refusal to apply time credits
towards his sentence that he purportedly earned under the FSA. 	(Id.) He
Case 3:25-cv-01039-MEM-LT Document 11 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 4

asserts that the BOP has erroneously treated his conviction 	as one that
precludes him from applying FSA time credits towards his sentence. (Id.)
Respondent responded to the petition on July 16, 2025, arguing that it
should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administratively or alternatively
denied on its merits. (Doc. 7). Cox filed a reply brief on August 22, 2025,
making the petition ripe for review. (Doc. 10).
II. 	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.
Cal/wood v. Enos, 230 F.3d 627, 634 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing Schande/meier 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. " Id. 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
2
Case 3:25-cv-01039-MEM-LT Document 11 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 4

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. Id. §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 Cox failed to
exhaust administrative remedies . Cox filed an administrative remedy request
challenging the denial of his FSA credits on November 20, 2024. (Doc. 7-2
at 4; Doc. 7-4 at 8). 1 Cox erroneously attempted to appeal directly to the
BO P's central office without first filing a regional appeal, and the central office
rejected the appeal with 	instructions to file a regional 	appeal. 	(Id.) Cox
attempted to file a regional appeal approximately two months later, which
1 The 	court 	cites the 	page 	numbers 	corresponding 	to 	the 	court's
electronic docket.
3
Case 3:25-cv-01039-MEM-LT Document 11 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 4

was rejected as untimely. (Id.) Cox did not make any additional attempts to
exhaust his administratively remedies. (Doc. 7-4 ). Cox does not dispute the
respondent's contention that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies,
but 	he 	argues that exhaustion 	should 	be 	excused 	because 	his 	petition
presents a question purely of statutory interpretation. (Doc. 10 at 2-3).
Cox's 	argument 	is 	unavailing . 	Although 	his 	claim 	requires
interpretation of a statute, the main thrust of the argument is that the BOP
officials made a mistake when reviewing his sentence and his eligibility for
FSA credits. 	This purported 	mistake 	is 	clearly something that could 	be
corrected through the BOP's administrative remedy process. Dismissal of
this 	case 	is 	therefore 	appropriate 	because 	Cox 	failed 	to 	exhaust
administrative remedies and there is no basis to excuse exhaustion.
Ill. 	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.
.
United States District Judge
Dated: 	/;io/2G
25-1039-01
4
Case 3:25-cv-01039-MEM-LT Document 11 Filed 01/20/26 Page 4 of 4