Green v. Harpe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
WILLIE GREEN, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-25-966-J
)
STEVEN HARPE, 	)
)
Respondent. 	)
ORDER
Petitioner, Willie Green, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking a writ of habeas corpus [Doc. No. 1]. The matter was referred for initial
proceedings to United States Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin consistent with 28 U.S.C. §
626(b)(1)(B),(C). 	See [Doc. No. 5]. 	Judge Erwin issued a Report and Recommendation [Doc.
No. 19] recommending the Court grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss. Petitioner has filed an
objection to the Report and Recommendation which triggers de novo review. [Doc. No. 20].
In the Report and Recommendation, Judge Erwin concludes that Petitioner’s Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus should be dismissed because Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies. Petitioner objects to the Report and Recommendation and asserts that he attempted to
exhaust but was not allowed to do so. Having reviewed this matter de novo, the Court concludes
that Petitioner’s Petition should be dismissed for failure to exhaust. 	Both the Department of
Corrections policy and the response Petitioner received from the facility head advised him that his
appeal had to be received by the Administrative Review Authority (ARA) within fifteen days of
his receipt of the response from the facility head1 and that the mailbox rule did not apply.
1 Petitioner received the response from the facility head on October 9, 2024. His appeal, therefore,
had to be received by October 24, 2024.
Case 5:25-cv-00966-J Document 21 Filed 03/06/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Petitioner, however, did not submit the appeal to the ARA until October 22, and it was received
by the ARA office on October 29, 2024, after the deadline.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 19],
GRANTS Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 17], and DISMISSES the Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1]. A certificate of appealability is DENIED, as the Court concludes
Petitioner has not made “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of March, 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-00966-J Document 21 Filed 03/06/26 Page 2 of 2