1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ) RAYMOND PATRICK CRUM, ) Case No. CV 20-3664-DOC (JEM) 12 ) Petitioner, ) 13 ) ORDER DISMISSING PETITION v. ) 14 ) B. VON BLANCKENSEE, Warden, ) 15 ) Respondent. ) 16 ) 17 On April 21, 2020, Raymond Patrick Crum (“Petitioner”), a federal prisoner who is 18 serving his sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution at Lompoc (“FCI-Lompoc”), filed 19 a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), as well as an 20 Emergency Motion for Expedited Injunctive and for Other Relief (“Emergency Motion”). 21 Petitioner is serving a sentence that was imposed in the United States District Court for the 22 Southern District of California in the matter of United States v. Crum, 3:18-CR-05317-AJB- 23 11.1 (Petition at 3, 152; Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (“MTD”), Ex. A at 1.) 24 25 26 1 A more complete description of Petitioner’s conviction and sentence are set forth in Respondent’s 27 Motion to Dismiss. 28 1 Petitioner seeks release from FCI-Lompoc and placement in home confinement “due 2 to the dangers in prison posed by COVID-19." (Petition at 13.) His request is made 3 “[p]ursuant to the recent Attorney General William Barr Memorandum in regard to COVID- 4 19, and in accordance with the First Step Act as amended by 18 USC [§] 3582(c)(A)(1)(i).” 5 (Id. at 15.) 6 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 7 Courts (“Habeas Rules”) requires summary dismissal of federal habeas petitions “[i]f it 8 plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled 9 to relief in the district court.” See also Habeas Rule 1(b) (permitting district courts to apply 10 Habeas Rules to Section 2241 habeas proceedings); Lane v. Feather, 584 F. App'x 843, 11 843 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming district court's application of Habeas Rule 4 to dismiss Section 12 2241 petition). 13 Additionally, a federal court is obligated to consider sua sponte whether it has 14 jurisdiction over a Section 2241 petition. See Nadarajah v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1069, 1075 15 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000) (court 16 must assess its jurisdiction “before proceeding to any other issue”). 17 Because it plainly appears from the face of the Petition that Petitioner is not entitled 18 to relief in this district, the Petition must be dismissed. 19 DISCUSSION 20 I. Motions for Compassionate Release Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) 21 Although the Petition is labeled as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 22 U.S.C. § 2241, it is properly construed as a motion for compassionate release pursuant to 23 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). (See Petition at 13, 15.) 24 A district court generally “may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been 25 imposed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c); see also Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 824-25 26 (2010). A narrow exception, compassionate release, allows the sentencing court to reduce 27 a prison term “after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that 28 1 they are applicable, if it finds that . . . (i) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such 2 a reduction.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Under prior law, only the Director of the BOP 3 could seek compassionate release. See, e.g., United States v. Smartt, 129 F.3d 539, 541 4 (10th Cir. 1997) (holding that the petitioner was not entitled to compassionate release 5 absent a motion from the BOP Director); Fernandez v. United States, 941 F.2d 1488, 1493 6 (11th Cir. 1991) (holding that a district court cannot review the BOP’s refusal to file a motion 7 for release). The First Step Act of 2018, 132 Stat. 5194, amended Section 3582(c)(1)(A) to 8 allow an inmate to file a motion for compassionate release in the sentencing court if the 9 inmate “has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the [BOP] to bring 10 a motion on the defendant’s behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a 11 request by the warden of the defendant’s facility.” 12 II. Motions for Compassionate Release Must Be Filed in the Sentencing Court 13 A motion under Section 3582(c) to modify a prison term must be addressed to the 14 sentencing court. See United States v. Ono, 72 F.3d 101, 102 (9th Cir. 1995) (a motion 15 under Section 3582(c) “is undoubtedly a step in the criminal case” that “requires the 16 [sentencing] court to reexamine the original sentence” (quotation marks omitted)); see also 17 United States v. Rala, 954 F.3d 594, 595 (3d Cir. 2020) (“Section 3582's text requires those 18 motions to be addressed to the sentencing court, a point several Circuits have noted . . . .”); 19 Rodriguez-Aguirre v. Hudgins, 739 F. App'x 489, 491 n.2 (10th Cir. 2018) (“[T]he district 20 court lacked authority to entertain [petitioner's] request for relief under 18 U.S.C. § 21 3582(c)(1)(A) because he filed his request in the district in which he is currently confined 22 rather than in the district that imposed his sentence.”); United States v. Brown, 817 F.3d 23 486, 488-89 (6th Cir. 2016) (“Because its purpose is to ask the sentencing court to reduce a 24 sentence . . . , a § 3582(c) motion is part of the defendant’s criminal proceeding.” 25 (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases)); Bolden v. Ponce, 2:20- 26 cv-3780-JFW-MAA, 2020 WL 2097751, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2020) (district court lacks 27 authority to grant release under § 3582(c)(1)(A) based on conditions caused by COVID-19 28 1 19-09641-PA (DFM), 2019 WL 7842560, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2019) (“[B]y its plain 2 language, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) requires Petitioner to move for reduction in the 3 sentencing court.”); Mohrbacher v. Ponce, No. CV 18-00513-DMG (GJS), 2019 WL 161727, 4 at *1 & n.1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2019) (same). 5 Petitioner was convicted and sentenced in the Southern District of California (see 6 MTD, Ex. A at 1), and any motion for compassionate release must be made there. Thus, 7 the Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter and it must be summarily dismissed. 8 III. The Court Lacks Authority to Transfer Petitioner to Home Confinement 9 The Court also lacks the authority to provide Petitioner with the remedy he seeks, 10 which is transfer to home confinement. (See Petition at 15.) He cites to the Attorney 11 General’s March 26, 2020 memorandum directing the BOP to expedite review of inmate 12 requests for home confinement and the related provisions of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, 13 and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ) RAYMOND PATRICK CRUM, ) Case No. CV 20-3664-DOC (JEM) 12 ) Petitioner, ) 13 ) ORDER DISMISSING PETITION v. ) 14 ) B. VON BLANCKENSEE, Warden, ) 15 ) Respondent. ) 16 ) 17 On April 21, 2020, Raymond Patrick Crum (“Petitioner”), a federal prisoner who is 18 serving his sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution at Lompoc (“FCI-Lompoc”), filed 19 a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), as well as an 20 Emergency Motion for Expedited Injunctive and for Other Relief (“Emergency Motion”). 21 Petitioner is serving a sentence that was imposed in the United States District Court for the 22 Southern District of California in the matter of United States v. Crum, 3:18-CR-05317-AJB- 23 11.1 (Petition at 3, 152; Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (“MTD”), Ex. A at 1.) 24 25 26 1 A more complete description of Petitioner’s conviction and sentence are set forth in Respondent’s 27 Motion to Dismiss. 28 1 Petitioner seeks release from FCI-Lompoc and placement in home confinement “due 2 to the dangers in prison posed by COVID-19." (Petition at 13.) His request is made 3 “[p]ursuant to the recent Attorney General William Barr Memorandum in regard to COVID- 4 19, and in accordance with the First Step Act as amended by 18 USC [§] 3582(c)(A)(1)(i).” 5 (Id. at 15.) 6 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 7 Courts (“Habeas Rules”) requires summary dismissal of federal habeas petitions “[i]f it 8 plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled 9 to relief in the district court.” See also Habeas Rule 1(b) (permitting district courts to apply 10 Habeas Rules to Section 2241 habeas proceedings); Lane v. Feather, 584 F. App'x 843, 11 843 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming district court's application of Habeas Rule 4 to dismiss Section 12 2241 petition). 13 Additionally, a federal court is obligated to consider sua sponte whether it has 14 jurisdiction over a Section 2241 petition. See Nadarajah v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1069, 1075 15 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000) (court 16 must assess its jurisdiction “before proceeding to any other issue”). 17 Because it plainly appears from the face of the Petition that Petitioner is not entitled 18 to relief in this district, the Petition must be dismissed. 19 DISCUSSION 20 I. Motions for Compassionate Release Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) 21 Although the Petition is labeled as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 22 U.S.C. § 2241, it is properly construed as a motion for compassionate release pursuant to 23 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). (See Petition at 13, 15.) 24 A district court generally “may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been 25 imposed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c); see also Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 824-25 26 (2010). A narrow exception, compassionate release, allows the sentencing court to reduce 27 a prison term “after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that 28 1 they are applicable, if it finds that . . . (i) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such 2 a reduction.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Under prior law, only the Director of the BOP 3 could seek compassionate release. See, e.g., United States v. Smartt, 129 F.3d 539, 541 4 (10th Cir. 1997) (holding that the petitioner was not entitled to compassionate release 5 absent a motion from the BOP Director); Fernandez v. United States, 941 F.2d 1488, 1493 6 (11th Cir. 1991) (holding that a district court cannot review the BOP’s refusal to file a motion 7 for release). The First Step Act of 2018, 132 Stat. 5194, amended Section 3582(c)(1)(A) to 8 allow an inmate to file a motion for compassionate release in the sentencing court if the 9 inmate “has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the [BOP] to bring 10 a motion on the defendant’s behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a 11 request by the warden of the defendant’s facility.” 12 II. Motions for Compassionate Release Must Be Filed in the Sentencing Court 13 A motion under Section 3582(c) to modify a prison term must be addressed to the 14 sentencing court. See United States v. Ono, 72 F.3d 101, 102 (9th Cir. 1995) (a motion 15 under Section 3582(c) “is undoubtedly a step in the criminal case” that “requires the 16 [sentencing] court to reexamine the original sentence” (quotation marks omitted)); see also 17 United States v. Rala, 954 F.3d 594, 595 (3d Cir. 2020) (“Section 3582's text requires those 18 motions to be addressed to the sentencing court, a point several Circuits have noted . . . .”); 19 Rodriguez-Aguirre v. Hudgins, 739 F. App'x 489, 491 n.2 (10th Cir. 2018) (“[T]he district 20 court lacked authority to entertain [petitioner's] request for relief under 18 U.S.C. § 21 3582(c)(1)(A) because he filed his request in the district in which he is currently confined 22 rather than in the district that imposed his sentence.”); United States v. Brown, 817 F.3d 23 486, 488-89 (6th Cir. 2016) (“Because its purpose is to ask the sentencing court to reduce a 24 sentence . . . , a § 3582(c) motion is part of the defendant’s criminal proceeding.” 25 (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases)); Bolden v. Ponce, 2:20- 26 cv-3780-JFW-MAA, 2020 WL 2097751, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2020) (district court lacks 27 authority to grant release under § 3582(c)(1)(A) based on conditions caused by COVID-19 28 1 19-09641-PA (DFM), 2019 WL 7842560, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2019) (“[B]y its plain 2 language, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) requires Petitioner to move for reduction in the 3 sentencing court.”); Mohrbacher v. Ponce, No. CV 18-00513-DMG (GJS), 2019 WL 161727, 4 at *1 & n.1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2019) (same). 5 Petitioner was convicted and sentenced in the Southern District of California (see 6 MTD, Ex. A at 1), and any motion for compassionate release must be made there. Thus, 7 the Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter and it must be summarily dismissed. 8 III. The Court Lacks Authority to Transfer Petitioner to Home Confinement 9 The Court also lacks the authority to provide Petitioner with the remedy he seeks, 10 which is transfer to home confinement. (See Petition at 15.) He cites to the Attorney 11 General’s March 26, 2020 memorandum directing the BOP to expedite review of inmate 12 requests for home confinement and the related provisions of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, 13 and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”). See BOP, COVID-19 Coronavirus (updated 14 regularly), available at https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/index.jsp. The CARES Act, which 15 was enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, significantly increased the BOP’s 16 authority to place prisoners in home confinement. See CARES Act, Pub. L. No., 116-136, § 17 12003(b)(2), 134 Stat. 281, 516 (March 27, 2020) (suspending eligibility limitations imposed 18 by 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2)). In his April 3, 2020 memorandum authorizing the BOP to 19 exercise its expanded CARES Act authority, the Attorney General emphasized that “time is 20 of the essence,” and he directed the BOP to focus on facilities that have significant numbers 21 of COVID-19 cases within their inmate populations. Attorney General, Memorandum for 22 Director of Bureau of Prisons Re: Increasing Use of Home Confinement at Institutions Most 23 Affected by COVID-19 (April 3, 2020), available at 24 https://www.justice.gov/file/126661/download. Thus, the BOP is “urgently reviewing all 25 inmates” to determine their eligibility, increasing resources to “review and make appropriate 26 decisions as soon as possible.” Federal Bureau of Prisons, Home Confinement (Apr. 5, 27 2020) (“BOP, Home Confinement”), available at https://www.bop.gov/resources/news/ 28 1 20200405 covid19 home confinement.jsp. Inmates “do not need to apply to be 2 considered[.]” Id. 3 However, this Court does not have jurisdiction to order a transfer to home 4 confinement, under the CARES Act or otherwise. Congress gave the Attorney General, and 5 by designation the BOP, exclusive authority to determine custody placements including 6 home confinement. Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1226-28 (9th Cir. 2011). Section 7 12003(b)(2) of the CARES Act authorizes only the BOP to determine whether “to place a 8 prisoner in home confinement under . . . [18 U.S.C. §] 3642(c)(2).” Moreover, as a general 9 matter, all placement determinations, including placement in home confinement, are 10 ultimately made under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(6)(A); see also 11 Sacora v. Thomas, 628 F.3d 1059, 1062 (9th Cir. 2010). The First Step Act added the 12 following language to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b): “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a 13 designation of a placement of imprisonment under this subsection is not reviewable by any 14 court.” Even prior to the passage of the First Step Act, it was well established that, “[w]hile 15 a district court judge has wide discretion in determining the length and type of sentence, the 16 court has no jurisdiction to select the place where the sentence will be served. Authority to 17 determine place of confinement resides in the executive branch of government and is 18 delegated to the Bureau of Prisons.” United States v. Ceballos, 671 F.3d 852, 855 (9th Cir. 19 2011) (alterations, quotations, and citations omitted); see also Reeb, 636 F.3d at 1226-28 20 (courts lack jurisdiction to review BOP’s placement decisions under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621-25). 21 Accordingly, the decision whether to place Petitioner in home confinement is within 22 the exclusive province of the BOP and is not subject to judicial review. The Court lacks the 23 authority to grant the relief requested.3 24 25 26 3 Respondent also argues that the Petition should be dismissed because Petitioner failed to exhaust 27 administrative remedies. (MTD at 7-10.) Because dismissal on this basis is normally without prejudice, and it has been determined that this action should be dismissed with prejudice on other grounds, the 28 1 ORDER 2 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed with 3 prejudice. 4 5 DATED: June 8, 2020 6 DAVID O. CARTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28