The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DAVID BROWN, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 23-cv-135-SMY
)
UNITED STATES DISCIPLINARY )
BARRACKS,1 )
)
Respondent. )
ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Petitioner David Brown, presently an inmate of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and
incarcerated at USP Marion, brings this habeas action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Brown is a
former active-duty member of the United States Army who was convicted and sentenced by a
court-martial. He seeks to challenge the computation of his credit for work abatement and raises
other issues relating to clemency and parole proceedings.
This matter is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Petition. Rule 4 of the
Federal Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District Courts provides that upon
preliminary consideration by the district judge, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any
attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must
dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Rule 1(b) gives this Court the
authority to apply the rules to other habeas corpus cases, like this one.
1 The proper respondent to a habeas petition is “the person who has custody over [the petitioner].” Rumsfeld v. Padilla,
542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2242). Brown is currently incarcerated at USP Marion. Accordingly,
the Warden of USP Marion is the correct respondent for this proceeding, not the United States Disciplinary Barracks.
Petitioners seeking habeas relief from a military conviction must exhaust all available
remedies prior to filing their § 2241 petition in federal court. That is, the petitioner must show that
he exhausted “all available military remedies.” Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S. 738, 758
(1975).
Here, Brown concedes that he has not exhausted his administrative remedies — he has not
appealed the decision, filed a grievance, or sought an administrative remedy (Doc. 1, p. 2).
Accordingly, without making any decision on the merits of Brown’s claim, this Court must dismiss
the Petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Brown’s motions for leave to proceed
IFP (Doc. 2), for discovery (Doc. 3), for oral argument (Doc. 4) and to expedite (Doc. 5) are
TERMINATED as MOOT. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly
and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 24, 2023 Ae kf Cele
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge