Okorie v. Warden of FCI-Schuylkill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TOOCHUKWU OKORIE,
Petitioner
V.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-1953
(JUDGE MANNION)
WARDEN OF FCI-SCHUYLKILL,
Respondent
MEMORANDUM
Presently before the court is a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241 to challenge the United States Bureau of
Prisons' enforcement of a restitution 	payment plan. 	The petition will 	be
dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner, Toochukwu Okorie, 	is 	incarcerated 	in 	Schuylkill Federal
Correctional Institution ("FCI-Schuylkill") serving a federal criminal sentence
that requires him to pay restitution. (Doc. 1). He filed the instant petition on
October 	16 , 2025, 	and 	the court received and docketed 	his petition 	on
October 	16 , 2025. (Doc. 	1). 	Okorie's petition asserts that the 	BOP 	has
improperly 	enrolled 	him 	in 	its 	Inmate 	Financial 	Responsibility 	Program
("IFRP") 	and 	compelled 	him 	to 	make 	restitution 	payments 	through 	the
program . (Id.)
Case 3:25-cv-01953-MEM-LT Document 8 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 4

Respondent responded to the petition on December 5, 2025, arguing
that 	it 	should 	be 	dismissed 	for 	failure 	to 	exhaust 	administratively 	or
alternatively denied on its merits. (Doc. 7). Okorie has not filed a reply brief,
and the deadline for doing so has expired under the Local Rules. The petition
is accordingly ripe fo r review.
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 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 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
the warden , appeal with the regional director, and-ultimately-final appeal
2
Case 3:25-cv-01953-MEM-LT Document 8 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 4

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 Okorie failed to
exhaust administrative remedies because his BOP records indicate that he
has not filed any administrative remedy requests while serving his sentence.
(Doc. 7-2 ; Doc. 7-4 ). Okorie has not contested this assertion through any
contrary 	evidence 	or 	argument. 	Dismissal 	of 	this 	case 	is 	therefore
appropriate because Okorie failed to exhaust administrative remedies and
he h as not provided any valid basis to excuse the failure to exhaust.
3
Case 3:25-cv-01953-MEM-LT Document 8 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 4

Ill. 	CONCLUSION
For t he 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.
ti 	E. Mannion
United S 	tes District Judge
Dated:
25-1953-01
4
Case 3:25-cv-01953-MEM-LT Document 8 Filed 01/20/26 Page 4 of 4