Leonard v. Quintana

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Leonard's complaint is DENIED; 2. Court will enter appropriate Judgment; 3. this matter is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 9/28/2015.(STC)cc: COR,Plt

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
LEXINGTON

MICHAEL D. LEONARD,

)
)
) Civil Action No. 5:15-135-JMH
)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
)
AND ORDER
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
V.
FRANCISCO QUINTANA, Warden,
Defendant.
****

****

****

****

Plaintiff Michael D. Leonard is a federal prisoner currently
confined at the Federal Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucky
(“FMC-Lexington”).

Proceeding

pro

se,

Leonard

has

filed

a

complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the doctrine announced
in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388
(1971), challenging the Warden’s denial of his request for a
reduction

in

Compassionate

sentence/compassionate
Release

review/reconsideration

release

Program.
of

the

Warden’s

under

the

Leonard
decision

BOP’s

requests
and/or

compensatory damages. [R. 1].

The Court must conduct a preliminary review of Leonard’s

complaint because he is proceeding in forma pauperis and because
he asserts claims against a government official.
1915(e)(2), 1915A.

A district court must dismiss any claim that

28 U.S.C. §§

is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.

McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601,

607-08 (6th Cir. 1997).

The Court evaluates Leonard’s complaint

under a more lenient standard because he is not represented by an
attorney.

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Burton v.

Jones, 321 F.3d 569, 573 (6th Cir. 2003).

At this stage, the Court

accepts the plaintiff’s factual allegations as true, and his legal
claims are liberally construed in his favor.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007).

Bell Atlantic Corp.

The Court has given his

complaint a liberal, and hence broad, construction, and will
evaluate any cause of action which can reasonably be inferred from
the allegations made.
Leonard claims that he has met all of the prerequisites under
the BOP’s Compassionate Release Program, codified at 18 U.S.C. §§
3582(c)(1)(A) and 4205(g), and that the Warden and the BOP have
incorrectly

concluded

that

he

does

not

satisfy

the

medical

requirements for early release/reduction in sentence (“RIS”) and
have erroneously denied his request for a RIS/early release under
this BOP program, all in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.
BACKGROUND
Leonard was convicted on February 5, 2013, in the Eastern
District of North Carolina for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1)
924(c)(1)(A)(ii), and is serving a total prison sentence of 262
2 

month.1

As grounds for his request for early release from custody,

he states that he is a paraplegic amputee who is ambulate by
wheelchair, that he has extraordinary circumstances that confine
him to bed more than 50% of the time, and that he is limited
ability with regard to self-care.
The Warden denied Leonard’s request for a RIS/compassionate
release

because

“according

to

your

catchment

physician,

your

medical issues, albeit challenging, do not meet the threshold of
a debilitated inmate.”

[R. 1-1, p. 3].

Leonard has exhausted his

administrative remedies as to this issue.

On March 16, 2015, the

BOP’s Central Office, the final level of administrative review,
determined that a RIS was not appropriate for Leonard at this time
and denied his request, explaining its decision, as follows:
Title
18
of
the
United
States
Code,
§3582(c)(1)(A), allows a sentencing court, on
motion of the Director of the BOP, to reduce a
term of imprisonment for extraordinary and
compelling reasons.
Pursuant to Program
Statement
5050.49,
Compassionate
Release/Reduction in Sentence: Procedures for
Implementation of 18 U.S.C.§ 3582(c)(1)(A) and
4205(g), Section 3(b), consideration for a RIS
may be given to an inmate who suffers incurable,
progressive illness or suffered a debilitating
injury from which he will not recover, and the
inmate is: (1) completely disabled, meaning the
inmate cannot carry on any self-care and is
totally confined to a bed or chair; or (2)

1

Error! Main Document Only.Per the BOP’s website, Moore is age
53, and his projected release date is April 4, 2031. See
www.bop.gov/inmateloc/56480056 last checked Sept. 26, 2015).

3 

capable of only limited self-care and confined
to a bed or chair for more than 50% of waking
hours.
We have carefully reviewed your request. Your
medical record reveals you do not meet the
criteria for a RIS at this time. You are capable
of self-care, and you are capable of completing
your basic and instrumental activities of daily
living with the assistance of medical adaptive
devices.
Moreover, you are not completely
disabled or confined to a bed or chair more than
50% of waking hours.
Accordingly, your appeal is denied.
[R. 1-1, p. 11].
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The BOP may seek the reduction of a prisoner's sentence in
federal court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The statute
states, “The court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it
has been imposed except that ... the court, upon motion of the
Director

of

the

Bureau

of

Prisons,

may

reduce

the

term

of

imprisonment ...” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (emphasis added).
The Sixth Circuit has determined that a federal court lacks
jurisdiction to review a decision by the BOP not to seek a
compassionate release/RIS for an inmate under § 3582(c)(1)(A).
Crowe v. United States, 430 F. App’x 484, 485 (6th Cir.2011); see
also Engle v. United States, 26 F. App’x 394, 397 (6th Cir.2001)
(“The district court lacked jurisdiction to sua sponte grant
compassionate

release.

A

district

court

may

not

modify

a

defendant's federal sentence based on the defendant's ill health,
4 

except upon a motion from the Director of the Bureau of Prisons.”).
Other circuits have made the same determination.

See Fernandez v.

United States, 941 F.2d 1488, 1493 (11th Cir.1991); Simmons v.
Christensen, 894 F.2d 1041, 1043 (9th Cir.1990); Turner v. United
States Parole Comm'n, 810 F.2d 612, 615 (7th Cir.1987).
The Court is not unsympathetic to Leonard’s plight and his
present health condition.

However, this Court simply does not

have jurisdiction to reverse the BOP’s denial of Leonard’s request
for a RIS/early release and not to move the Court for a reduction
of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Michael Leonard’s complaint filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331 and the doctrine announced in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal
Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) [R. 1] is DENIED.
2.

The Court will enter an appropriate Judgment with this

Memorandum Opinion and Order.
3.

This matter is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court’s

docket.
This the 28th day of September, 2015.

5