Opinion
3:12-cr-00373-HZ-1
07-08-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. SAMUEL NAVARRETTE-AGUILAR, Defendant.
ORDER
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, United States District Judge.
Defendant Samuel Navarrette-Aguilar moves the Court to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The Government opposes Defendant's motion.
The Court denied Defendant's first motion for compassionate release on July 28, 2021. July 2021 Order, ECF 233. It denied his second motion for compassionate release on January 25, 2022. January 2022 Order, ECF 243. Defendant now moves a third time for compassionate release.
In his third motion, Plaintiff raises general arguments about the risk of COVID-19, new variants, and the efficacy of vaccines. As the Court has advised Defendant previously, without a showing that he is particularly vulnerable to severe infection, generalized concerns about the risk of COVID-19 are not “extraordinary and compelling reasons” justifying compassionate release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). See United States v. Navarrette-Aguilar, No. 3:12-CR-00373-HZ-1, 2021 WL 3260056, at *2 (D. Or. July 28, 2021).
Defendant argues further that he is the victim of a sentencing disparity. Because of his immigration status, he is unable to take advantage of good time-credits or halfway house placement. The Court will not reduce his sentence on this basis. Defendant's sentence was affirmed on appeal. See United States v. Navarrette-Aguilar, 693 Fed.Appx. 703 (9th Cir. 2017). Furthermore, as the Court has noted in its prior orders, the § 3553(a) sentencing factors do not support early release. See January 2022 Order at 2 (“Defendant's offense involved the distribution of deadly drugs after he escaped from state prison. Upon release he will be sent to Mexico without supervision. Under these circumstances, the sentencing factors do not support such a significant reduction in his sentence.”); September 2021 Order at 5-6 (finding the same).
Finally, in a supplement to his motion, Defendant argues the conditions of confinement in federal prison justify compassionate release. Def. Supp. Mot. Ex. A, ECF 248-2. He highlights a lack of routine dental care, insufficient outdoor recreation time and activities, poor mask and glove wearing by staff, inadequate staffing levels, and poor food choices. These concerns do not justify a reduction in his individual sentence. A motion for compassionate release is not the proper vehicle to address generalized grievances about the conditions confinement in federal prison. See United States v. Waxman, No. CR18-175RSL, 2021 WL 4148180, at *6 n. 5 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 13, 2021) (“Any Eighth Amendment arguments defendant may have regarding the conditions of confinement may be properly brought in a habeas petition or a direct civil claim, not a motion for compassionate release.”); Shook v. Apker, 472 Fed.Appx. 702, 703 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding the defendant's concerns about the conditions of his confinement “are properly brought under” federal civil rights law).
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) [244] without prejudice and with leave to seek reconsideration if circumstances change.
IT IS SO ORDERED.