The opinion of the court was delivered by: Renée Marie Bumb, United States District Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner's motion for reconsideration ("Motion") received by the Clerk on May 12, 2009.
On March 3, 2009, the Clerk received Petitioner's § 2241 petition ("Petition"), which was dated February 15, 2009. See Docket Entry No. 1. The Petition, executed in a virtually illegible hand script, allowed the Court to discern only that Petitioner's challenges were related, in one way or another, to the Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program ("RDAP") administered at Petitioner's then-place-of-confinement, FCI Fairton, but did not allow the Court to determine any other aspects of Petitioner's challenges. See id. The Court, therefore, issued an order, dated April 24, 2009, dismissing the Petition without prejudice, for failure to comply with the requirements of Habeas Rule 2(c) and Local Rule 81.2, and directed the Clerk to remit the filing fee of $5.00 to Petitioner. See Docket Entry No. 2.
In addition, since the Petition did not assert that Petitioner's claims were duly exhausted administratively and included no attachments replicating the documents pertinent to administrative exhaustion of what might have been Petitioner's claims, the Court advised Petitioner of the applicable exhaustion requirement. See id. On April 27, 2009, the Clerk received Plaintiff's letter advising the Court of Plaintiff's relocation to his current place of confinement, FCI Terre Haute, that letter was dated April 21, 2009. See Docket Entry No. 3. On May 12, 2009, the Clerk received Plaintiff's instant Motion. See Docket Entry No. 4.
I. Petitioner's Instant Submission
The Motion, a fifteen-page document, consists of the following:
(1) a brief-like part titled "Motion for Reconsideration" ("Brief");
(2) a copy of the envelope used, apparently, by the Clerk, for unknown purposes;
(3) a note to this Court informing the Court that Petitioner did not get any response after he wrote to the Clerk on two occasions (allegedly, on April 8, 2009, and then on another, unspecified date, these two alleged letters are referred to, collectively, as "Unspecified Letters") and asserting that copies of the Unspecified Letters are attached to the note but, in actuality, having no such Unspecified Letters included in the submission;*fn1 and
(4) a copy of Petitioner's original Petition ("Amended Petition"), with a "translation" of Petitioner's hand scripted statements typed right above each line of that hand script; this document also includes a small amount of additional typed data. See id.
The bulk of the Brief is dedicated to discussion of Petitioner's preference for having his legal submissions typed, his inability to access a typewriter during his placement in segregated confinement, his disappointment with not having responses from the Clerks to the Unspecified Letters, Petitioner's research of the judges in this District and his decision to write a "shot in the dark" letter to this Court,*fn2 Petitioner's intent to file an amended petition upon obtaining access to a typewriter, Petitioner's opinion that "legibility [is] a matter that is in the eyes of the beholder," Petitioner's belief that no remittance of filing fee could be executed by the Clerk, as well as his discussion of legal sources dealing with prejudicial dismissals of habeas petitions and civil complaints.*fn3 See id. at 1-5.
The only potentially relevant statement contained in the Brief is a reference to Petitioner's execution of some "BP-10 and BP-11 Administrative Remedy appeals."*fn4 See id. at 2. This reference suggests that Petitioner might have exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to his instant challenges.*fn5
The Amended Petition, presenting -- as noted -- the original Petition with "translations" and a small amount of additional data entered, asserts that:
(1) Petitioner had two indictments prosecuted against him at the United Stated District Court for the Eastern District of New York ("EDNY"), and these indictments were returned in 2006 and 2007, see Docket Entry No. 4, at 9 (providing the indices of these criminal matters);
(2) Petitioner had three indictments prosecuted against him at the United Stated District Court for the District of Massachusetts ("DMASS"), and these indictments were returned in 1997, 1998 and 1999, see id. (providing the indices of these criminal matters);
(3) Petitioner's guilty pleas in the EDNY resulted in two consecutive sentences, one of 32 months and another of 33 months, both imposed on April 29, 2008, and Petitioner is currently pursuing an appeal as to his conviction and/or sentences in EDNY,*fn6 see id. at 9-10;
(4) the DMASS prosecutions also resulted in two consecutive sentences, one of 96 months (imposed on February 8, 2000) and another of 48 months, imposed on an unspecified date in April 2000, with the latter being reversed by the United States v. Scott ("Scott-First Circuit"), 270 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2001). See id.
Clarifying that his instant habeas challenges relate solely to his EDNY sentences, see id. at 13, Petitioner asserts the following facts:
FCI Fairton warden has improperly denied placement in RDAP program despite substantial documentary evidence of substance abuse in the 1 yr. Period relevant to [P]petitioner's federal criminal conduct in the community. [E]vidence was submitted of marijuana in 1999 and heroin in 1993 to 1999. Federal criminal conduct on [P]petitioner's cases was from 1994 to 1999. Petitioner has no ...