GARTEN

v.

MARIANNA WARDEN

1 Although it is unnecessary to consider the merits of any of Petitioner’s claims based on her failure to exhaust her administrative remedies, the Court notes that the claim asserted in Ground Four of the petition (“Cruel & Unusual Punishment as Per 8th and 14th Amendment”) is not a proper ground for habeas relief and should be raised, if at all, in a suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The Court did not overlook Petitioner’s argument that exhaustion is not required because her petition raises issues of statutory interpretation that apply to all prisoners, but the mere fact that the judicial resolution of an issue in the petitioning inmate’s case may impact how the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) handles other inmates’ cases does not mean that the petitioning inmate does not have to give BOP an opportunity to resolve the issue in her case before seeking judicial review. That is so because the Court can only resolve legal issues in the context of a discrete case, and unless and until BOP is given an opportunity to resolve the issue in the petitioning inmate’s case, there is no ripe controversy for the Court to resolve. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524-25 (2002) (explaining in the context of a prison conditions case that the exhaustion requirement gives “corrections officials time and opportunity to address complaints internally before allowing the initiation of a federal case”); Rogers v. Bennett, 873 F. 2d 1387, 1392 (11th Cir. 1989) (“One of the primary purposes in requiring plaintiffs to exhaust their administrative remedies is to assure that the courts review ripe controversies, presenting concrete injuries.”);