Giddings v. Frith

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BYHZIR B. GIDDINGS, 	: 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-2137
:
Petitioner 	: 	(Judge Neary)
:
v. 	:
:
WARDEN J. FRITH, 	:
:
Respondent 	:
MEMORANDUM
This is a habeas corpus case filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner, Byhzir
B. Giddings, seeks a writ of habeas corpus compelling the United States Bureau of
Prisons (“BOP”) to give him time credit towards his sentence pursuant to the First
Step Act (“FSA”). The petition will be dismissed for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies.
I. 	Factual Background & Procedural History
Giddings is incarcerated in Schuylkill Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI-
Schuylkill”) serving a federal sentence imposed by a different court in this district.
(Docs. 6-2, 6-3). Giddings’s petition asserts that the BOP has improperly refused to
apply time credits to his sentence that he is entitled to under the FSA. (Id.)
Respondent responded to the petition on December 17, 2025, arguing that Giddings
failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that his claim otherwise fails on its
merits. (Doc. 6). Giddings filed a reply brief in support of his petition on January 5,
2026, making the petition ripe for review. (Doc. 7).
Case 1:25-cv-02137-KMN-LT Document 8 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 4

2
II. 	Discussion
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. See 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.” Id. at 761-62.
The BOP has a specific internal system through which federal prisoners can
request review of nearly any aspect of their imprisonment. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.10-
.19. That 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 general counsel. Id. §§ 542.13-.15. No administrative remedy is
considered fully exhausted until reviewed by the general counsel. Id. § 542.15(a).
Failure to complete the BOP’s administrative remedy process in accordance with
the BOP’s procedural rules constitutes procedural default that bars judicial review.
Moscato, 98 F.3d at 760.
Exhaustion is the rule in most cases, and failure to exhaust will generally
preclude habeas review. Id. 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.
Case 1:25-cv-02137-KMN-LT Document 8 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 4

3
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).
Respondent argues that Giddings’s petition should be dismissed for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies because all of his relevant grievances or appeals
were dismissed by the BOP on procedural grounds, and he therefore failed to
complete the administrative remedy process in accordance with the BOP’s internal
rules. (Doc. 6 at 4-6). Respondent has produced evidence to support this conclusion.
(Docs. 6-2, 6-4). Giddings argues that respondent’s exhaustion argument “lacks
merit” because he filed grievances and appeals at all levels of the BOP’s
administrative remedy process that were denied. (Doc. 7 at 1-2).
Respondent is correct that Giddings failed to exhaust administrative
remedies. The evidence respondent has submitted1 shows that he filed an
administrative remedy request requesting FSA credits on April 4, 2025, which was
denied on April 24, 2025. (Doc. 6-4 at 4). He appealed to the BOP’s regional office on
May 12, 2025, but his appeal was dismissed as untimely. (Id. at 5). He then
attempted to appeal to the central office, but his appeal was dismissed as filed at
the wrong level because he had not corrected the untimeliness of his regional
appeal. (Doc. 6-2 at 2; Doc. 6-4 at 5). Giddings argues that he exhausted
administrative remedies because he filed grievances and appeals at all levels of the
1 Gidding has not disputed the authenticity of the evidence and provides the
same relevant information in his petition. (See Doc. 1 at 2-4).
Case 1:25-cv-02137-KMN-LT Document 8 Filed 01/21/26 Page 3 of 4

4
BOP’s administrative remedy process, (Doc. 7 at 1-2), but his failure to do so in
accordance with the BOP’s procedural rules constitutes a failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. Moscato, 98 F.3d at 760. His petition will accordingly be
dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
III. 	Conclusion
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. An appropriate order shall issue.
/S/ K ELI M. N EARY
Keli M. Neary
United States District Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Dated: 	January 21, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-02137-KMN-LT Document 8 Filed 01/21/26 Page 4 of 4