Clayton Crowe v. USA

Filing

Per Curiam OPINION filed : AFFIRMED, decision not for publication pursuant to local rule 206. Jeffrey S. Sutton, Circuit Judge; Helene N. White, Circuit Judge and William H. Stafford, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio.

Case: 09-6508

Document: 006111016267

Filed: 07/18/2011

Page: 1

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 11a0494n.06
No. 09-6508
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
FILED

Jul 18, 2011
CLAYTON P. CROWE,

LEONARD GREEN, Clerk

Petitioner-Appellant,
v.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
/
BEFORE:

SUTTON and WHITE, Circuit Judges; and STAFFORD, District Judge.*

PER CURIAM.
The petitioner-appellant, Clayton Crowe, appeals from the district court's judgment denying
his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We AFFIRM.
Crowe is currently serving a sixty-year sentence in federal prison. Because he suffers from
heart and kidney ailments, Crowe asked the Director of the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") to file a
motion in federal court seeking a compassionate release as permitted under 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The BOP denied his request. After pursuing administrative remedies without
success, Crowe filed a petition—styled as a § 2241 petition—in the district court, seeking an order
requiring the BOP to file a motion for compassionate release with the sentencing court in North
*

The Honorable William H. Stafford, Jr., Senior United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

Case: 09-6508

Document: 006111016267

Filed: 07/18/2011

Page: 2

No. 09-6508
Crowe v. USA
Carolina. The district court correctly determined that § 2241 does not provide subject matter
jurisdiction over Crowe's petition. The district court also correctly determined that, even if viewed
as a request for review of agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701706, Crowe's petition lacks merit because federal courts have no authority to review or countermand
the BOP's decision not to seek a compassionate release for an inmate. Crowe filed a timely appeal
to this court.
The BOP has the authority to seek a modification of a prisoner's sentence pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), which provides that a federal court "may not modify a term of
imprisonment once it has been imposed except that . . . in any case . . . the court, upon motion of the
Director of the [BOP], may reduce the term of imprisonment . . . if it finds that . . . extraordinary
and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction." Id. (emphasis added). The statute places no
limits on the BOP's authority to seek or not seek a sentence reduction on behalf of a prisoner, nor
does it define—or place any limits on—what "extraordinary and compelling reasons" might warrant
such a reduction. The BOP, in other words, has broad discretion in its decision to move the court
for a sentence modification under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).1
Based on this broad grant of discretion, a number of courts have determined that the BOP's
decision regarding whether or not to file a motion for compassionate release is judicially
unreviewable. See Fernandez v. United States, 941 F.2d 1488, 1493 (11th Cir. 1991) (holding that

1

Crowe argues, on various grounds, that the breadth of discretion granted to the BOP by
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) is unconstitutional. Crowe's arguments in this regard are frivolous and we
decline to address them.
-2-

Case: 09-6508

Document: 006111016267

Filed: 07/18/2011

Page: 3

No. 09-6508
Crowe v. USA
the BOP's decision whether to seek a compassionate release under the predecessor to §
3582(c)(1)(A)(i) was unreviewable); Simmons v. Christensen, 894 F.2d 1041, 1043 (9th Cir. 1990)
(same); Turner v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 810 F.2d 612, 615 (7th Cir. 1987) (same); Crawford v.
Woodring, No. CV 08-362-GW, 2009 WL 6575082, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2009) (dismissing as
unreviewable prisoner's § 2241 request for an order directing the BOP to move for early release
under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)); Gutierrez v. Anderson, No. 06-1714, 2006 WL 3086892, at *4 (D. Minn.
Oct. 30, 2006) (same); see also Engle v. United States, 26 F. App'x 394, 397 (6th Cir. 2001) (holding
that the district courts lack "jurisdiction to sua sponte grant compassionate release" and that "[a]
district court may not modify a defendant's federal sentence based on the defendant's ill health,
except upon a motion from the Director of the Bureau of Prisons"). Consistent with these decisions,
we hold that a federal court lacks authority to review a decision by the BOP to not seek a
compassionate release for an inmate under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
The judgment of the district court denying Crowe's petition for writ of habeas corpus is
AFFIRMED.

-3-