Opinion
C/A No.: 5:21-225-BHH-KDW
02-09-2021
Maynard Akeem Sanders, Plaintiff, v. Bureau of Prisons, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Maynard Akeem Sanders ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, is a federal prisoner incarcerated at Federal Correctional Institution Williamsburg ("FCI-Williamsburg"). Plaintiff filed this action seeking a modification of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 in light of COVID-19 pandemic. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such complaints for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends the district judge dismiss the Complaint. I. Factual and Procedural Background
On June 12, 2017, Plaintiff was convicted in the Southern District of Georgia of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and the court sentenced him to 78 months imprisonment. United States v. Sanders, C/A No.: 17-cr-11-WTM-CLR-1 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 19, 2017), ECF Nos. 53, 66. Plaintiff was subsequently sentenced to 186 months' imprisonment in a separate case, 147 months of which the district court ordered to run consecutively to the sentence in his June 2017 case. United States v. Sanders, C/A No.: 4:16-cr-358 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 28, 2018), ECF No. 69.
Plaintiff filed this pleading seeking to reduce his sentence due to the Covid-19 pandemic. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff claims there is a Covid-19 outbreak at his institution FCI-Williamsburg and the institution is on lockdown. Id. at 2. Plaintiff alleges he is in an at-risk category according to the Centers for Disease Control and World Health Organization's guidelines because he suffers from cardiopulmonary pathology, high blood pressure, hypertension, anxiety, and depression. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff claims he is more than likely to die or have a less favorable outcome if he was to contract Covid-19. Id. at 4. Plaintiff argues the Federal Bureau of Prisons is unable to protect inmates from the risk of contracting Covid-19 from the officers when they come to work, and alleges that if he is released, he can control his environment and safety. Id. at 4. Plaintiff requests that he be released. Id. II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Plaintiff filed his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without prepaying the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. To protect against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute allows a district court to dismiss a case upon a finding that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted or is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). A finding of frivolity can be made where the complaint lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). A claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). A federal court is charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In evaluating a pro se complaint, the plaintiff's allegations are assumed to be true. Fine v. City of N.Y., 529 F.2d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 1975). The mandated liberal construction afforded to pro se pleadings means that if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so. Nevertheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 390-91 (4th Cir. 1990).
B. Analysis
The undersigned finds that this matter should be summarily dismissed as the court does not have jurisdiction to grant the relief Plaintiff requests. An inmate seeking a sentence reduction or compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 is required to file an action in the district court where the inmate was sentenced. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); see also Deffenbaugh v. Sullivan, No. 5:19-HC-2049-FL, 2019 WL 1779573, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 23, 2019) (explaining that a motion for § 3582 compassionate release must be filed in the sentencing court); Robinson v. Wilson, No. 1:17-2630, 2017 WL 5586981, at *5 (S.D. W.Va. Sept. 26, 2017) ("Like a § 2255 motion, a § 3582 motion must be filed in the movant's underlying criminal action and be addressed by the sentencing court."); Alexis v. Ortiz, No. 19-1085-RBK, 2019 WL 2367034, at *2-3 (D.N.J. June 5, 2019) (finding no authority under the First Step Act to consider a compassionate release claim as the statute provides that it is the sentencing court that may modify a sentence upon receipt of a motion from the BOP or the defendant). Because Plaintiff was sentenced in the Southern District of Georgia, this court does not have jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff's compassionate release claim. III. Conclusion and Recommendation
The court notes Plaintiff recently filed a similar action in the court in which he was sentenced—the Southern District of Georgia. See United States v. Sanders, C/A No.: 17-cr-11-WTM-CLR-1 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 19, 2017). Petitioner moved for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 on November 10, 2020, but the sentencing court denied the motion because Petitioner failed to present any extraordinary or compelling circumstances to warrant compassionate release. United States v. Sanders, C/A No.: 17-cr-11-WTM-CLR-1 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 19, 2017), ECF No. 103.
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that the court dismiss the Complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. February 9, 2021
Florence, South Carolina
/s/
Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge
The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached
"Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation."
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. [I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
Post Office Box 2317
Florence, South Carolina 29503
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).