MUNOZ v. KUTA

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by MIGUEL ANGEL PANIAGUA MUNOZ. See Memorandum Opinion for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy on 1/4/2018. (sms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIGUEL ANGEL PANIAGUA MUNOZ, )
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
S. M. KUTA (Warden),
)
)
Respondent.
)

Civil Action No. 3: 17-cv-0132
United States Magistrate Judge
Cynthia Reed Eddy

MEMORANDUM OPINION1
Petitioner, Miguel Angel Paniagua Munoz, (“Petitioner” or “Paniagua Munoz”), a federal
prisoner presently confined at Moshannon Valley Correctional Center (“MVCC”)2, Philipsberg,
Pennsylvania, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Named
as the Respondent is MVCC’s Warden, S. M. Kuta.
Paniagua Munoz is currently serving a 140-month sentence imposed by the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 15, 2016, for a drug related offense.3
He has a projected release date of December 11, 2019, via good time release. On December 13,
2010 (and again on April 12, 2013 and July 21, 2016), an immigration detainer was placed on
him concerning a deportation investigation.
Petitioner’s habeas petition does not challenge the legality or execution of his federal
1.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have voluntarily
consented to have a U.S. Magistrate Judge conduct proceedings in this case, including entry of a
final judgment. jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge. See ECF Nos. 7 and 8.
2

Moshannon Valley Correctional Center is a private facility owned by Geo Group and
operated pursuant to a contract with the Bureau of Prisons.
3

Petitioner was originally sentenced on November 1, 2014, to a term of 150 months
imprisonment, but the sentence was later reduced to 140 months imprisonment.
1

conviction or sentence. Rather, he claims entitlement to federal habeas corpus relief on the
grounds that he should be granted early compassionate release. In December 2016, the MVCC’s
Warden denied Petitioner’s request for compassionate release.

Petitioner contends that his

chronic medical condition requires compassionate release and that the denial was improper
because the decision was based on the fact that an immigration detainer has been placed on him.
Respondent filed a response arguing, inter alia, that compassionate release arguments are
not properly raised in a habeas proceeding.

Petitioner has filed a reply.

After careful

consideration of the filings of both parties, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction
to consider Paniagua Munoz’s request for compassionate release.
II.

Discussion
In November 2016, Paniagua Munoz requested consideration for Compassionate Release/

Reduction in Sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) based on his age, medical condition, and
family circumstances. Specifically, Paniagua Munoz claims he is eligible for Compassionate
Release/ Reduction in Sentence because he is:
an inmate with proved chronical medical conditions. He has served more than
70% of the sentence imposed upon him. He is 68 years old, toothless inmate, a
medical (dental) problem to which the BOP (MVCC for this instant matter) has
not been able to provide a remedy (a denture) to alivate petitioner’s medical
needs.
Petitioner at 4 (quoted verbatim) (ECF No. 1). On December 5, 2016, the MVCC Warden
denied Petitioner’s request for Compassionate Release / Reduction in Sentence explaining as
follows:
This is in response to your request received on November 30, 2016, in which you
have requested consideration for Compassionate Release/Reduction in Sentence
under of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). You have requested consideration based on
your age, medical condition, and family circumstances.

2

The MVCC Medical Department has confirmed that you have a long standing
diagnosis of Hyperlipidemia, Benign Prostate Hypertrophy, Coronary Artery
Disease, and Peptic Ulcer Disease. These are serious illnesses, but when treated
appropriately with medication and treatment compliance, the prognosis is good.
According to medical records, you are following the prescribing physician’s
treatment plan and are managing your conditions well. There are no concerns for
any deteriorating mental or physical health that would substantially diminish your
ability to function in a correctional facility. Conventional Treatment needs to be
maintained, as prescribed, in order to maintain your current level of health.
Although it is understood at times families experience a financial hardship during
the incarceration of loved ones, you do not meet any of the extraordinary or
compelling circumstances outlined in BOP PS 5050.49, Compassionate
Release/Reduction in Sentence: Procedures for Implementation of 18 U.S.C. §§
3582(c)(1)(A) and 4205(g).4
Additionally, at present, you have a detainer lodged from Immigration and
Customs Enforcement. According to the above program statement, all detainer
and holds should be resolved.
Due to this information, you are not appropriate for a Compassionate Release /
Reduction in Sentence at this time.
I trust this addresses your concerns.
Memorandum from S. M. Kuta, Warden, 12/5/2016 (ECF No. 4-6). Petitioner appealed this
denial to all appropriate levels of review. Both the Privatization Management Branch and the
BOP Central Office denied Petitioner’s appeal finding that MVCC’s Warden appropriately
denied the request for Compassionate Release because Petitioner did not meet the criteria for an
elderly inmate with medical conditions.
A prisoner may obtain release from incarceration prior to the end of a validly-imposed
sentence on compassionate grounds set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The BOP may file
a motion for compassionate release with the sentencing court “only after review of the request by
“18 U.S.C. § 4205(g) was repealed effective November 1, 1987, but remains the
controlling law for inmates whose offenses occurred prior to that date. For inmates whose
offenses occurred on or after November 1, 1987, the applicable statute is 18 U.S.C.
3582(c)(1)(A).” BOP Program Statement 5050.49, § 572.40 (ECF No. 4-7).
4

3

the Warden, the General Counsel, and either the Medical Director for medical referrals or the
Assistant Director, Correctional Programs Division for non-medical services, and with the
approval of the Director, Bureau of Prisons.” BOP Program Statement 5050.49, § 571.62 (a),
Aug. 12, 2013 (ECF No. 4-7). It is well settled that a court may not award compassionate relief
unless the Director of the BOP moves for a reduction in the prisoner’s sentence. See Fields v.
Zickefoose, No. 3:CV-15-516, 2016 WL 7197403 at *2 (Dec. 9, 2016) (citing United States v.
Lagonia, 2012 WL 574500 *1 (D.N.J. Feb. 21, 2012), aff’d sum nom Fields v. Warden
Allenwood USP, 684 F. App’x 121 (3d Cir. Apr. 4, 2017) (unpublished opinion). Further,
“courts have generally held that the BOP’s decision to file a motion under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) or
its predecessor is not judicially reviewable.” Fields, 684 F. App’x at 123 (citing Fernandez v.
United States, 941 F.2d 1488, 1493 (11th Cir. 1991)). “The statute plainly vests the decision to
pursue relief solely with the BOP.” Id.
Thus, there is no authority for this Court to review or countermand the BOP Director’s
decision not to seek compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). See Fields, 684 F. App’x
at 121; Share v. Kruegger, 553 F. App’x 207 (3d Cir. 2014) (finding that the “BOP’s decision
regarding whether or not to file a motion for compassionate release is judicially unreviewable”);
Crowe v. United States, 430 F. App’x 484, 485 (6th Cir. 2011)(“the BOP’s decision regarding
whether or not to file a motion for compassionate release is judicially unreviewable”) (collecting
cases).

4

As a result, Petitioner’s petition will be denied for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.5
An appropriate Order follows.

DATED: January 4, 2018

cc:

s/Cynthia Reed Eddy
Cynthia Reed Eddy
United States Magistrate Judge

Miguel Angel Paniagua Munoz
42413-004
Moshannon Valley Correctional Center
555 Geo Drive
Philipsburg, PA 16866
(via U.S. First Class Mail)
Michael A. Comber
Assistant U.S. Attorney
(via ECF electronic notification)

5

Because the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it will not address the
merits of Petitioner’s arguments. However, the Court notes that Program Statement 5050.49, §
571.62(a)(1)(c) (entitled Approval of request) specifically states that “[a]ll detainers and holds
should be resolved prior to the Warden’s submission of a case under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) or
4205(g). If a pending charge or detainer cannot be resolved, an explanation of the charge or
conviction status is needed.” (emphasis added). In this case, the Warden correctly noted as
required by P.S. 5050.49, that Petitioner had an immigration detainer; however, the record
appears to reflect that Petitioner’s request was denied at all levels of review not because of the
unresolved detainer but because Petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria for elderly inmates
with medical conditions as set forth in P.S. 5050.49, § 571.61(4)(b).
5