Opinion
No. 3:20-cv-237 (SRU)
05-13-2020
BAMM PAUL OH, Plaintiff, v. APRN SAPRANO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Bamm Paul Oh, currently confined at MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution, filed a motion for immediate release from custody based on the current COVID-19 crisis. See Mot. for Release from Custody, Doc. No. 17. His motion is denied without prejudice to refiling in state court.
I. Background
On October 6, 2016, Oh pled guilty to robbery in the first degree, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-134(a)(4). Bamm Paul Oh, Criminal/Motor Vehicle Conviction Case Detail, State of CT Judicial Branch, https://www.jud2.ct.gov. Oh was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment, execution suspended after five years, and five years' probation. Thus, Oh's release date is April 12, 2021. Bamm Paul Oh, Inmate Information, CT State Dep't of Corr., http://www.ctinmateinfo.state.ct.us.
On February 20, 2020, Oh filed a complaint against numerous employees of the Connecticut Department of Corrections ("DOC") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Compl., Doc. No. 1. In his complaint, Oh alleges that the Defendants exhibited a deliberate indifference to his medical needs in violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments. See id. In particular, Oh alleges that he has a debilitating skin condition that the Defendants have neglected.
On April 15, 2020, Oh filed the instant motion for immediate release from custody. See Mot. for Immediate Release from Custody, Doc. No. 17. In that motion, Oh asks to be released, in part, because he "do[es] not trust, . . . or believe that the medical staff or officers are trained to handle the COVID[-]19 is[s]ues if this virus is b[r]ought into this prison," and he does not "believe my body at this time can[] handle it." See id. at 1.
II. Discussion
I cannot order Oh's release because this case is a civil rights action that Oh has brought pursuant to section 1983. As a state prisoner seeking relief in federal court, Oh cannot challenge the duration of his confinement in a section 1983 action; he can do so only by petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487-90 (1973) (holding that a state prisoner challenging the length of confinement and requesting immediate release must do so by a habeas petition, not by a section 1983 suit); Murphy v. Travis, 36 F. App'x 679, 681 (2d Cir. 2002) (holding that a state prisoner's request for injunctive relief in a section 1983 case was "tantamount to seeking relief from confinement and is thus barred by the Supreme Court's decision in Preiser"). Accordingly, I do not have the authority to grant the relief that Oh seeks. Oh may, of course, bring the same motion in state court.
As amended by the First Step Act of 2019, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) authorizes me to reduce a term of imprisonment if, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a), I conclude, in relevant part, that "extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction," and that "such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issues by the Sentencing Commission." That relief, however, is available only to individuals incarcerated for federal offenses and so is unavailable here. See United States v. Rivernider, 2020 WL 597393, at *2 (D. Conn. Feb. 7, 2020) ("The First Step Act . . . modified the compassionate release statute to enable a federal prisoner to petition the sentencing court for a reduction in his sentence.") (emphasis added). --------
III. Conclusion
Oh's motion for immediate release from custody, doc. no. 17, is denied without prejudice.
So ordered. Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 13th day of May 2020.
/s/ STEFAN R. UNDERHILL
Stefan R. Underhill
United States District Judge