Bonner v. Rardin

Background

Petitioner Cordaro Bonner is a federal prisoner who was found in possession of a cell phone in 2025, which violated prison rules. As a result of disciplinary proceedings, he lost 41 days of good-time credits (sentence-reduction credits earned for good behavior) along with other, lesser sanctions.

Mr. Bonner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a court order demanding that the government justify a person's detention or punishment — challenging the disciplinary proceedings on two primary grounds: (1) that the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) who presided over the case had not been lawfully appointed, and (2) that neither the DHO nor anyone else had given him Miranda warnings (the warnings about the right to remain silent and to have an attorney, established in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)) during the disciplinary proceedings. He requested that the disciplinary sanction be vacated and his good-time credits restored.

Mr. Bonner also argued that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) lacked congressional authority to impose any punishments at all. The court noted there was no reason to believe he had exhausted administrative remedies with respect to that claim, and further observed it was not a meritorious claim in any event, citing 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1) and Morales v. Rardin, No. 24-CV-3121 (JMB/TNL), 2024 WL 5220656 (D. Minn. Dec. 26, 2024).

Exhaustion Requirement

The court conducted an initial review of the petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (applicable by analogy to petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241). Although the federal habeas corpus statute at 28 U.S.C. § 2241 does not itself impose an exhaustion requirement, courts have long required federal prisoners to exhaust the administrative remedies made available by the BOP before seeking habeas relief. See Mathena v. United States, 577 F.3d 943, 946 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. Chappel, 208 F.3d 1069, 1069 (8th Cir. 2000). The BOP's administrative remedy process is set out at 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.10–542.19.

The petition gave no indication that Mr. Bonner had pursued these internal BOP remedies. Accordingly, the court issued an Order on April 22, 2026, directing Mr. Bonner to provide evidence of exhaustion by May 22, 2026, and warning that failure to do so would result in a recommendation of dismissal without prejudice.

Ruling

Mr. Bonner did not respond to the court's Order or provide any evidence of exhaustion by the May 22, 2026 deadline. Magistrate Judge Docherty therefore recommends:

1. That the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be denied without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 2. That the matter be dismissed.

The recommendation expressly states that this disposition does not permanently bar Mr. Bonner from returning to federal court — he may refile after first presenting his claims to the BOP through its administrative process.

Procedural Posture

This is a Report and Recommendation from a United States Magistrate Judge, not a final order or judgment from the District Court. Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), any party may file specific written objections within 14 days of being served a copy. Responses to objections are due within 14 days after service of the objections. The Report is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.