Opinion
Civil Action 23-1394 (CPO)
05-10-2023
TERRY LEE TETTERTON, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, FCI FORT DIX, Respondent.
OPINION & ORDER
Christine P. O'Hearn United States District Judge
In his § 2241 Petition, Petitioner argues that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) revoked his home confinement under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”), Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (2020), without a hearing on the issue. (ECF No. 1, at 2.) Now before the Court is Petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order and for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 6.) Petitioner seeks an order from the Court to direct the BOP to “return [him] to home confinement, pending a final ruling on his Petition.” (Id. at 5.) Petitioner believes that the BOP will lose its authority to place him under CARES Act home confinement on May 10, 2023. (Id. at 2.)
Assuming arguendo that Petitioner otherwise meets the requirements for a TRO or preliminary injunction, this Court must dismiss his motion for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner seeks a direct order for home confinement, but this Court “has no authority to issue such an order.” United States v. Farlow, No. 18-44, 2021 WL 1207485, at *4 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2021); see also e.g., Davey v. Warden Lamine N'Diaye, No. 22-2254, 2023 WL 2570221, at *7 (D.N.J. Mar. 20, 2023); Perri v. Warden of FCI Fort Dix, No. 20-13711, 2023 WL 314312, at *3 (D.N.J. Jan. 19, 2023); Hussain v. Thompson, No. 21-1635, 2021 WL 5298898, at *3-4 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2021), aff'd sub nom. Hussain v. Warden Allenwood FCI, No. 22-1604, 2023 WL 2643619 (3d Cir. Mar. 27, 2023). Petitioner's request for home confinement falls under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2), as amended by § 12003(b)(2) of the CARES Act. Farlow, No. 18-44, 2021 WL 1207485, at *4.
“The CARES Act does not empower a district court to transfer an inmate to home confinement; rather, that decision rests solely within the discretion of the BOP.” Id. (citing United States v. Moore, No. 19-101, 2020 WL 4282747, at *8 (D.N.J. July 27, 2020)); Hussain, 2021 WL 5298898, at *3-4 (citing cases); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) (stating that “a designation of a place of imprisonment under this subsection is not reviewable by any court”); United States v. Aguibi, 858 Fed.Appx. 485, 486 n.2 (3d Cir. 2021) (citing Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 331 (2011)) (finding that the BOP has the sole authority to place a prisoner on home confinement) Washington v. Warden Canaan USP, 858 Fed.Appx. 35, 36 (3d Cir. 2021) (“[W]hether to transfer an inmate to home confinement is a decision within the exclusive discretion of the BOP.”).
In other words, prisoners cannot use “§ 2241 as an end-run around the compassionate release statute (18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)) and the federal CARES Act, which vests in the Director of the Bureau of Prisons discretion to transfer an inmate to home confinement.” Olson v. Warden Schuylkill FCI, No. 21-2436, 2022 WL 260060, at *2 (3d Cir. Jan. 27, 2022). Consequently, this Court lacks jurisdiction to issue an order for home confinement “under 18 U.S.C.§ 3624(c)(2) or its amendments under the CARES Act.” Farlow, 2021 WL 1207485, at *4; see also Davey, 2023 WL 2570221, at *7 (finding that this Court “lacks jurisdiction to issue an order for home confinement under . . . the CARES Act”); Rodriguez-Francisco v. United States, No. 21-1180, 2023 WL 2089256, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 17, 2023) (same); Perri, 2023 WL 314312, at *3 (same). As a result, this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant Petitioner's request for a temporary order to return him to home confinement under the CARES Act. Accordingly, IT IS, on this 10th day of May 2023,
ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order and for a preliminary injunction, (ECF No. 6), is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Opinion and Order upon Petitioner by regular U.S. mail.