Summary
recommending to the Bureau of Prisons that defendant receive home confinement instead of placement in a halfway house
Summary of this case from United States v. DoyleOpinion
CRIMINAL ACTION NO: 00-256 SECTION: "J"(1)
April 6, 2004
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the Court is the Motion for Recommendation for Placement on Home Confinement Instead of Halfway House, filed by the defendant. Rec. Doc. 48. The Government has filed a response to the motion. The motion, set for hearing on March 31, 2004, has been submitted to the Court on briefs.
In the motion, defendant moves the Court to recommend to the Bureau of Prisons that defendant be placed in home confinement rather than a halfway house, based upon his understanding that in recognition of "extraordinary circumstances" involving the defendant, the Bureau of Prisons will follow such a recommendation. The circumstances alluded to include the fact that defendant has apparently conducted himself as a model prisoner; that his mother — in — law, who provided extensive assistance in caring for defendant's children, died during his confinement; and that multiple individuals throughout the community have written in support of the defendant's character and abilities. The Government has responded that if the Bureau of Prisons determines that defendant is a suitable candidate for home confinement, it would have no objection.
The Court observes that were the defendant requesting this Court TO designate him to serve the final portion of his sentence in home confinement, the Court would be barred from providing the requested relief for two reasons. First, the authority to determine a prisoner's place of confinement lies with the Bureau of Prisons. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). "[F]ederal prisoners generally enjoy no constitutional right to placement in any particular penal institution." Prows v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 981 F.2d 466, 469 n. 3 (10th Cir. 1992). Second, any issue defendant may have with the Bureau of Prisons' implementation of his sentence* with respect to the provision contained at 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) concerning pre — release detention is subject to an exhaustion of remedies requirement in accordance with 28 C.F.R. § 542.10 et seq. See, e.g., United States v. Thompson, 34 F. Supp.2d 404, 405 (S.D. W. Va. 1998). The exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional and absent proof of exhaustion defendant could not present such a claim to this Court. See id, and cases cited therein. Defendant has avoided these hurdles, however, by requesting not that this Court order home confinement in lieu of a halfway house, but that the Court "recommend" home confinement.
Like the Government, the Court agrees that the Bureau of Prisons is in the best position to evaluate the defendant's ability to successfully adjust and re — enter the community, given that Bureau employees have worked directly with defendant and are privy to complete records regarding defendant's progress. At the same time, the correspondence and records which the Court has had the opportunity to review, and those facts surrounding defendant's family situation of which the Court is aware, all suggest to the Court that home confinement may be a good choice for this defendant. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that defendant's Motion for Recommendation for Placement on Home Confinement Instead of Halfway House (Rec. Doc. 48), should be and is hereby GRANTED, and the Court recommends home confinement in lieu of halfway house confinement for Keith Washington, providing the Bureau of Prisons considers home confinement suitable for the defendant.