Alberto Manuel Nunez v. Eric Rardin

Nunez v. Rardin · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · November 25, 2025 · No. 2:25-cv-12596

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed Alberto Manuel Nunez’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ calculation of First Step Act and Second Chance Act credits. The court held that Nunez failed to exhaust the Bureau of Prisons’ administrative review process and dismissed the petition without prejudice.

Holdings

  1. A federal inmate may properly use a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge the manner in which the inmate's sentence is being executed, including the computation of sentencing credits and release dates.
  2. A federal prisoner must exhaust available Bureau of Prisons administrative remedies concerning sentence computation before seeking habeas review under § 2241, subject to the recognized futility exception.
  3. A prisoner may not avoid the exhaustion requirement by abandoning the administrative process and then asserting that exhaustion is futile because the time to pursue administrative review has expired.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a federal prisoner's challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to the execution and calculation of his sentence is properly brought through habeas corpus.
  2. Whether Nunez exhausted the Bureau of Prisons' available administrative remedies before filing his § 2241 petition.
  3. Whether the expiration of the time to appeal the warden's decision excused Nunez's failure to complete the administrative-remedy process.
  4. Whether the petition should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (12)

  • United States v. Nunez, No. 19-cr-20433, Judgment, ECF No. 24 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 16, 2020)(background)
  • Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6th Cir. 1998)(followed)
  • Hall v. Eichenlaub, 559 F. Supp. 2d 777, 779-80 (E.D. Mich. 2008)(followed)
  • Luedtke v. Berkebile, 704 F.3d 465, 466 (6th Cir. 2013)(followed)
  • Fazzini v. Ne. Ohio Corr. Ctr., 473 F.3d 229, 231 (6th Cir. 2006)(followed)
  • United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 335 (1992)(followed)
  • Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 89 (2006)(followed)
  • McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 145 (1992)(followed)
  • Palm v. Rardin, No. 1:24-CV-12651, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82211, 2025 WL 1364376, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2025)(followed)
  • Hartsfield v. Vidor, 199 F.3d 305, 309 (6th Cir. 1999)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 12.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…