Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-518-P
07-01-2020
AUDIE EUGENE COUCH, Petitioner v. S. MERENDINO, ET AL., Respondent
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES
JUDGMENT
Before the court are (1) an appeal from the Magistrate Judge's April 27, 2020 memorandum order (Doc 4) and (2) the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5) recommending Couch's petition be denied and dismissed without prejudice as the cited statute, 18 U.S,C, §3626 does not afford him relief and this court lacks jurisdiction to hear any other matters.
As to the appeal of the Magistrate Judge's memorandum order converting Couch's motion for compassionate release to a petition for habeas corpus, we note that this court does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter directly. The proper court for relief is the sentencing court, not the district where he is confined. Therefore, recharacterization as a petition for habeas corpus was proper.
As to Couch's claims for compassionate release, we have conducted a de novo review of the record, including Couch's objection to the Report and Recommendation on June 8, 2020 (ECF No. 8), and concur with the Magistrate Judge's findings. We further note that to the extent Couch seeks release to home confinement under the CARES Act, this and many other courts have previously determined that a district court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue of which inmates should be reassigned to home confinement under the CARES Act. United States v. Korieocha, 2020 WL 2331679 (E.D. La. 2020); United States v. Gentry, 2020 WL 2131001 (W.D. La. 2020); United States v. Figueroa Maldonado, 2020 WL 2225182 (S.D. Tex. 2020); United States v. Echols, 2020 WL 2309255 (N.D. Miss. 2020). A request for consideration for transfer to home confinement under the CARES Act must be made to the BOP, as it is the agency vested with the authority to designate the place of confinement for all inmates. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). While the CARES Act does increase the parameters of available home confinement for BOP inmates, it does not create a federal cause of action for designation to that program. See 18 U.S.C. 3624(c)(2).
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Couch's appeal of the Magistrate Judge's memorandum order (Doc. 4) is DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1) is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Petitioner seeking compassionate release in the court of conviction.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED at Alexandria, Louisiana, this 1st day of July 2020.
/s/ _________
DEE. D. DRELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE