From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Roach

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Jul 22, 2020
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 2:19-cr-00126 (S.D.W. Va. Jul. 22, 2020)

Opinion

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 2:19-cr-00126

07-22-2020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JOHN EDWARD ROACH, II


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the court is Defendant John Edward Roach's pro se letter-form motion for compassionate release. [ECF No. 49]. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED without prejudice.

The First Step Act empowers criminal defendants to request compassionate release for "extraordinary and compelling reasons." 18 U.S.C § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). But before they make such requests, defendants must ask the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") to do so on their behalf and then wait 30 days. See § 3582(c)(1)(A). Upon such a motion from BOP or from a defendant (after BOP denies the request or thirty days have elapsed since the request was filed), a court "may reduce the term of imprisonment...." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

Though some district courts have waived Section 3582's exhaustion requirement because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of district courts have found that failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a death knell to a defendant's request for compassionate release. I recently held in agreement with the majority of courts, finding that a defendant must exhaust his or her administrative remedies before motioning this court. United States v. Thompson, ---F.Supp.3d---, No. 2:18-CR-00105, 2020 WL 2121371, at *4 (S.D.W. Va. May 5, 2020). I adopt and incorporate my reasoning in Thompson here. See id.

See e.g., United States v. Paul Gileno, No. 3:19-CR-161-(VAB)-1, 2020 WL 1916773, at *5 (D. Conn. Apr. 20, 2020) (finding that the exhaustion requirement should be waived as undue delay in defendant's release could result in catastrophic health consequences for him in light of his underlying health conditions and the COVID-19 pandemic); United States v. Jones, Criminal No. 3:11cr249-MHL, ECF No. 47 (E.D. Va. Apr. 3, 2020) (finding that the defendant's "unique circumstances and the exigency of a rapidly advancing pandemic" justified waiver of the exhaustion requirement); United States v. Perez, No. 17 Cr. 513 (AT), 2020 WL 1546422, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2020) (finding that the defendant's "undisputed fragile health, combined with the high risk of contracting COVID-19 in the [Metropolitan Correctional Center], justifies waiver of the exhaustion requirement," because the defendant had "less than three weeks remaining on his sentence" and suffered "severe side effects" from two surgeries); United States v. Calvin, No. 19 Cr. 179 (JBA), 2020 WL 1613943, at *2 (D. Conn. Apr. 2, 2020) (finding that "all three exceptions to the exhaustion requirement apply to Defendant's request").

See e.g., United States v. Wright, No. 17 CR 695 (CM), 2020 WL 1922371, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2020); United States v. Feiling, No. 3:19 CR 112 (DJN), 2020 WL 1821457, at *5 (E.D. Va. Apr. 10, 2020; United States v. Underwood, No. CR TDC-18-0201, 2020 WL 1820092, at *2 (D. Md. Apr. 10, 2020); United States v. Sundblad, No. CV 6:16-CR-00047-JMC, 2020 WL 1686237, at *2 (D.S.C. Apr. 7, 2020); United States v. Carver, No. 19 Cr. 6044, 2020 WL 1604968, at *1 (E.D. Wa. Apr. 1, 2020); United States v. Clark, No. 17 Cr. 85 (SDD), 2020 WL 1557397, at *3 (M.D. La. Apr. 1, 2020); United States v. Williams, No. 15 Cr. 646, 2020 WL 1506222, at *1 (D. Md. Mar. 30, 2020); United States v. Garza, No. 18 Cr. 1745, 2020 WL 1485782, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2020); United States v. Zywotko, No. 19 Cr. 113, 2020 WL 1492900, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2020); United States v. Eberhart, No. 13 Cr. 313 (PJH), 2020 WL 1450745, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2020); United States v. Hernandez, No. 18 Cr. 834 (PAE), 2020 WL 1445851, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2020); United States v. Cohen, No. 18 Cr. 602 (WHP), 2020 WL 1428778. at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2020). --------

Mr. Roach has made no representations to the court that he has filed a request with the Warden and waited the requisite 30 days. Accordingly, I do not reach the merits of Mr. Roach's pro se letter-form motion for compassionate release. The motion, [ECF No. 49], is DENIED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, which means he is not barred from bringing the motion again after he has petitioned BOP and waited 30 days. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to the defendant and counsel, the United States Attorney, the United States Probation Office, and the United States Marshal.

ENTER: July 22, 2020

/s/_________

JOSEPH R. GOODWIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Roach

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Jul 22, 2020
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 2:19-cr-00126 (S.D.W. Va. Jul. 22, 2020)
Case details for

United States v. Roach

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JOHN EDWARD ROACH, II

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION

Date published: Jul 22, 2020

Citations

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 2:19-cr-00126 (S.D.W. Va. Jul. 22, 2020)