Cory Mitchell v. Warden

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: August 27, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-07700
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CORY MITCHELL, ) Case No. CV 20-7700-MWF (SP) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 13 v. ) SUMMARILY DISMISSING ) PETITION 14 WARDEN, ) ) 15 Respondent. ) ) 16 ) 17 18 I. 19 INTRODUCTION 20 On August 20, 2020, petitioner Cory Carnell Mitchell, a federal prisoner at 21 the United States Penitentiary at Lompoc, California (“USP Lompoc”), filed a 22 document in this Court that was docketed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus 23 under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). In fact, the Petition asks this Court to grant 24 petitioner compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 25 As discussed further below, this Court was not petitioner’s sentencing court, 26 and therefore it lacks authority to grant his Petition for compassionate release. 27 Indeed, a substantially similar request for petitioner’s compassionate release is now 28 pending in the sentencing court. Accordingly, the Petition will be dismissed. 1 II. 2 PROCEEDINGS 3 Records from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 4 Texas reflect that in case number 6:16-cr-00008 in that court, petitioner pled guilty 5 to conspiracy to commit kidnapping.1 On April 5, 2017, that court sentenced 6 petitioner to 262 months in prison. 7 On April 8, 2020, petitioner filed a motion in the Eastern District of Texas to 8 reduce his sentence. That court denied the motion six days later. On April 24, 9 2020, petitioner filed a letter motion in the Eastern District of Texas for early 10 release. That court denied petitioner’s early release motion five days later. 11 On July 20, 2020, petitioner filed a motion for compassionate release in the 12 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. See case no. 6:16-cr- 13 00008, docket no. 256 (E.D. Tex.). That motion remains pending in that court. 14 Meanwhile, petitioner, who is incarcerated at USP Lompoc, filed the instant 15 Petition for compassionate release in this Court on August 20, 2020. Petitioner 16 argues this Court should order his expeditious compassionate release because: he 17 contracted COVID-19 on June 7, 2020; he recently restarted taking his Humira 18 medication, which is an immune depressant steroid that makes him extremely 19 vulnerable to coronavirus; and the prison has delayed the administrative process to 20 grant him compassionate release. Petitioner’s pending motion for compassionate 21 release in the Eastern District of Texas raises substantially the same points for his 22 release, as well as mentioning certain pre-existing conditions. See case no. 6:16- 23 cr-00008, docket no. 256 (E.D. Tex.). 24 /// 25 26 1 The Court takes judicial notice of the docket and documents filed in case 27 number 6:16-cr-00008 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 28 Texas, which are electronically accessible through that court’s CM/ECF system. 1 III. 2 DISCUSSION 3 A. This Court Lacks Jurisdiction 4 Petitioner seeks release under the First Step Act’s compassionate release 5 provision, found in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The provision permits a court to 6 reduce a term of imprisonment on motion of the defendant (after satisfying certain 7 administrative requirements), if the court finds, inter alia, “extraordinary and 8 compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(I). 9 The compassionate release provision is just one part of § 3582, which as a 10 whole concerns imposition of a sentence of imprisonment. A motion under 11 § 3582(c) to modify a prison term consequently must be addressed to the 12 sentencing court. See U.S. v. Raia, 954 F.3d 594, 596 (3d Cir. 2020) (“Section 13 3582’s text requires those motions to be addressed to the sentencing court, a point 14 several Circuits have noted. . . .”) (citations omitted); see also U.S. v. Ono, 72 F.3d 15 101, 102 (9th Cir. 1995) (“a motion under § 3582(c)(2) is undoubtedly ‘a step in 16 the criminal case’” and is considered by the sentencing court). Indeed, as to the 17 compassionate release provision specifically, federal courts have consistently 18 concluded that § 3582(c)(1)(A) authorizes only the original sentencing court to 19 consider such a request for release. See, e.g., Rodriguez-Aguirre v. Hudgins, 739 20 Fed. Appx. 489, 491 n.2 (10th Cir. 2018) (“[T]he district court lacked authority to 21 entertain [petitioner’s] request for relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) because 22 he filed his request in the district in which he is currently confined rather than in 23 the district that imposed his sentence.”) (citation omitted); Bolden v. Ponce, 2020 24 WL 2097751, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2020) (“This Court . . . has no authority to 25 grant release under § 3582(c)(1)(A). Only the original sentencing court can 26 entertain such requests.”) (citations omitted); Thody v. Swain, 2019 WL 7842560, 27 at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2019) (“[B]y its plain language, 18 U.S.C. 28 § 3582(c)(1)(A) requires Petitioner to move for reduction in the sentencing court.”) 1 (citations omitted); Mohrbacher v. Ponce, 2019 WL 161727, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 2 10, 2019) (while § 3582(c)(1)(A) “may afford Petitioner a basis for relief in the 3 sentencing court . . . it does not provide any basis for this Court to grant relief”). 4 As set forth above, petitioner was sentenced by the United States District 5 Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Accordingly, only that court has authority 6 to grant petitioner’s request for compassionate release. This Court lacks 7 jurisdiction to grant the relief petitioner seeks. 8 B. Transfer Would Not Be in the Interest of Justice 9 Since this Court lacks jurisdiction, the remaining question is whether this 10 Court should dismiss the Petition or transfer it to the sentencing court. The transfer 11 of civil actions to cure jurisdictional defects is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1631.2 12 Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 n.6 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). 13 Transfer is appropriate under § 1631 if three conditions are satisfied: (1) the 14 transferring court lacks jurisdiction; (2) the transferee court could have exercised 15 jurisdiction at the time the action was filed; and (3) the transfer is in the interest of 16 justice. Cruz-Aguilera v. INS, 245 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Kolek v. 17 Engen, 869 F.2d 1281, 1284 (9th Cir. 1989)). 18 The first two conditions are met here: this Court lacks jurisdiction, and the 19 Eastern District of Texas could exercise jurisdiction. But a transfer would not be 20 in the interest of justice because petitioner already has filed a request for 21 compassionate release in the Eastern District of Texas, and the request remains 22 pending. As described above, the request petitioner made in the Eastern District of 23 Texas is substantially identical to the request he made to this Court. Nothing 24 would be gained by transferring this duplicate Petition to the Eastern District of 25 Texas. 26 27 2 It is questionable whether this is properly considered a civil action since 28 petitioner seeks relief that may only be obtained in his criminal case; but in any ] In sum, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the Petition, and transfer to the 2 || Eastern District of Texas would not be in the interest of justice. As such, the Court 3 || will dismiss the Petition without prejudice. 4 IV. 5 CONCLUSION 6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily 7 || dismissing the Petition and this action without prejudice. 8 9 || DATED: August 27, 2020 = i _ hl SW Capa fel 12 UNITED STATES DIS’ Se JUDGE 3 Presented by: 14 RQ Is} 16 Diited States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28