Opinion
Case No. 13-20749
07-28-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM GIPSON, Respondents.
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND HOME CONFINEMENT
Defendant William Gipson pleaded guilty to bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). (ECF No. 32, PageID.134.) On October 29, 2014, the court sentenced him to 102 months imprisonment. (Id., PageID.135.)
Defendant has filed a "Request for Appointment of Counsel [and] Home Confinement." (ECF No. 43.) He asks to court to order him to home confinement due to health risks presented by the Coronavirus Disease ("COVID-19").
The Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), not the court, has the authority to "designate the place of [a] prisoner's imprisonment." 18 U.S.C. 3621(b); see Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 331 (2011) ("When a court sentences a federal offender, the BOP has plenary control, subject to statutory constraints, over 'the place of the prisoner's imprisonment,' § 3621(b)."). Congress tasked the BOP with "ensur[ing] that a prisoner serving a term of imprisonment spends a portion of the final months of that term . . . under conditions that will afford that prisoner a reasonable opportunity to adjust to and prepare for . . . reentry [into society]." 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1). To achieve this task, the BOP alone has authority to "place a prisoner in home confinement." 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2).
District courts in the Sixth Circuit have routinely denied prisoner requests to order home confinement. United States v. Shorter-Hayes, Case No. 17-20614, 2020 WL 3961600, at *1 (E.D. Mich. July 13, 2020) (Michelson, J.) ("[T]his Court does not have the authority to order [defendant] released to home confinement."); United States v. Oliver, Case No. 17-20489, 2020 WL 2768852, at *2 (E.D. Mich. May 28, 2020) (Berg, J.) ("[T]he exclusive authority to determine a prisoner's place of incarceration—including home confinement—rests with the BOP, not with the sentencing court."); United States v. Boyd, Case No. 14-86, 2020 WL 2106023, at *1 (E.D. Tenn. May 1, 2020) (reasoning that a court order "has no binding effect on the authority of the [BOP] to determine or change the place of imprisonment"); United States v. Gales, Case No. 19-251-4, 2020 WL 2085146, at *3 (N.D. Ohio April 29, 2020) ("[T]he authority to provide for home confinement rests with the BOP.").
The court lacks legal authority to grant Defendant's request. 18 U.S.C. 3621(b); 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1). Because Defendant's request is facially inadequate, appointment of counsel is not necessary.
To the extent that Defendant's request could be read as a motion for compassionate release under 8 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), it fails for lack of exhaustion. Defendant can move for compassionate release only "after [he] has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the [BOP] to bring a motion on [his] behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of [Defendant's] facility, whichever is earlier." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Defendant neither presents evidence nor alleges that he exhausted administrative remedies or waited thirty days after submitting to the BOP a request for release. See United States v. Alam, 960 F.3d 831, 834 (6th Cir. 2020) (holding that § 3582(c)(1)(A)'s exhaustion requirement is a "mandatory claim-processing rule[]" that "must be enforced"). If Defendant later satisfies the exhaustion requirements of § 3582(c)(1)(A), the court may review a request for compassionate release. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's "Request for Appointment of Counsel [and] Home Confinement" (ECF No. 43) is DENIED.
s/Robert H. Cleland /
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: July 28, 2020 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on this date, July 28, 2020, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner /
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
(810) 292-6522 S:\Cleland\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\13-20749.GIPSON.RequestforAppointmentofCounselandHomeConfinement.RMK.2.docx