KENNETH JAMES KENDRICK, APPELLANT,
v.
SECRETARY MICHAEL MOORE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court reversed the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition challenging Close Management Level I placement because the petitioner had exhausted his administrative remedies regarding the CMI status grievance, contrary to the lower court's finding.
A habeas corpus petition challenging CMI placement must be considered on the merits when the petitioner has exhausted administrative remedies as to the specific grievance regarding CMI status.
[1] A habeas corpus petitioner challenging administrative placement decisions need only exhaust remedies as to the specific grievance at issue, not all potentially related ad…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was placed in Close Management Level I at Washington Correctional Institute in February 1999 without recent disciplinary reports. He filed a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Inmate Grievance Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Because the lower court erred in dismissing appellant’s petition for writ of ha-beas corpus, we reverse and remand.
Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the lower court in which he alleged that he was being held in Close Management Level I in violation of his right to due process. In February 1999, appellant was placed in Close Management Level I(CMI) at the Washington Correctional Institute, Appellant immediately filed an inmate grievance, alleging such placement was “unjust” because he had not received any disciplinary reports in seven months. He appealed the denial of his grievance, and his appeal was denied on March 26, 1999. The lower court dismissed appellant’s petition for writ of ha-beas corpus on the ground that appellant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Appellant’s petition contained a rather convoluted presentation of at least three grievance processes, and he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to two of them. As explained above, however, the March 1999 denial of appellant’s administrative appeal, a copy of which was attached to appellant’s petition, evidences that appellant did exhaust his administrative remedies as to his grievance regarding his CMI status. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for consideration of appellant’s claim that he does not meet the administrative rule requirements for CMI status.
ERVIN, MINER and KAHN, JJ., CONCUR.