proposed by Winn and Lappin, see Resp’t’s Resp. at 7-8, they would need to show that the Bureau’s rules require exhaustion of administrative remedies for claims that do not relate to prison conditions. See Trafalgar Capital Assocs. v. Cuomo, 159 F.3d 21, 36 n. 15 (1st Cir.1998) (noting that for a claim brought under the APA, courts may not exercise judicial discretion to require exhaustion of remedies if the statute or agency rules do not otherwise require exhaustion). In this case, either the initial classification of Fox as a sex offender or any of the detailed responses to Fox denying his administrative requests for relief, coupled with Fox’s impending release is sufficient for this Court to consider the Bureau’s classification of Fox as final. See Simmons, 361 F.Supp.2d at 453, 455 (<HOLDING>). If the notification challenge is construed as
holding that sex offender registration and notification do not constitute punishment holding evidence was legally insufficient to support conviction for violation of sex offender registration requirement holding that the bureau classification of petitioner as a sex offender was final where petitioners scheduled release was only weeks away holding that an individual who is required to register as a sex offender is not in custody holding that some of the sex offender conditions imposed on defendant as part of his sentence for possessing a firearm were unreasonable where defendants sole sex offense was over a decade old at the time of sentencing