United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court pursuant to Alisha Marie
Humphrey's pro se Amended Motion for Relief under the
First Step Act (Doc. # 762), filed on July 2, 2019. The
Government responded in opposition on July 18, 2019. (Doc. #
764). For the reasons that follow, the Motion is denied.
2012, Humphrey pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing a
detectable amount of Oxycodone in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 846 and 841(a)(1). (Doc. ## 1, 191). This Court
then sentenced her to serve 130 months imprisonment to run
consecutively with a sentence imposed in a state case. (Doc.
# 382). In April 2016, Humphrey's sentence was reduced to
110 months to run consecutive to her state incarceration.
(Doc. # 597). In August 2016, her sentence was further
reduced to 89 months. (Doc. ## 609, 610). Humphrey is
currently incarcerated within the Northern District of
Florida and is scheduled to be released on June 1, 2020.
(Doc. # 761-1).
April 12, 2019, Humphrey filed a Motion for Relief under the
First Step Act. (Doc. # 752). The Government responded in
opposition on July 2, 2019. (Doc. # 761). On the same day,
before the Court could rule on the Motion, Humphrey filed the
instant Amended Motion. (Doc. # 762). At the time of filing,
Humphrey had served approximately 62 percent of her full
sentence. (Doc. # 761-2 at 5). The Government has responded
(Doc. # 764), and the Amended Motion is ripe for review.
Humphrey mentions Sections 102 and 3582 in her Amended
Motion, she does not raise any arguments pursuant to those
sections. (Doc. # 762). Instead, Humphrey is seeking “a
Court Order requesting from the BOP that she be placed into a
home confinement imprisonment to finish out her term.”
(Id. at 8). Specifically, she states she “is
not seeking a modification to the length of her sentence but
more so towards the placement of where she will complete her
sentence.” (Id. at 7).
602 of the First Step Act authorizes the Bureau of Prisons
(BOP) to “place prisoners with lower risk levels and
lower needs on home confinement for the maximum amount of
time permitted under this paragraph.” 18 U.S.C. §
3624(c)(2). The maximum amount of time allowed for home
confinement is the lesser of six months or 10 percent of the
full term of imprisonment. Id.
decision whether to place a prisoner in home confinement is
solely within the discretion of the BOP and the Attorney
General. See United States v. Campanale, No.
8:15-cr-65-T-24AEP, Doc. 84 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 16, 2019). As one
court noted, “Congress . . . directed BOP to place
prisoners on home confinement ‘to the extent
practicable.'” United States v. Yates, No.
15-40063-01-DDC, 2019 WL 1779773 at *4 (D. Kan. Apr. 23,
2019). Furthermore, Section 3624(c) states: “The
authority under this subsection may be used to place
a prisoner in home confinement. . . .” 18 U.S.C. §
3624(c)(2) (emphasis added). Therefore, it is at the
BOP's discretion, not this Court's, to determine if
Humphrey is eligible to be placed on home confinement.
Humphrey's Amended Motion is premature. Her projected
release date is June 1, 2020. (Doc. # 761-2 at 1). Her home
detention eligibility begins six months prior on December 1,
2019. (Id.). At that time, it will be within the
BOP's discretion to determine if Humphrey qualifies for
six months of home detention. After exhausting her
administrative remedies, which she currently has not done
(Id. at 7-9), Humphrey may seek review of the
BOP's decision on constitutional grounds by filing a
Section 2241 petition. See Austin v. Woods, No.
2:19-cv-7-WHA, 2019 WL 2417654 (M.D. Ala. May 17, 2019)
(holding that a prisoner must first exhaust their
administrative remedies for home confinement before seeking
relief under Section 2241). But such a challenge must be
brought within the district of confinement. 28 U.S.C. §
is unable to satisfy the requirements of Section 2241 because
she is not incarcerated within the Middle District of
Florida, and she has not exhausted her administrative
remedies. (Doc. ## 761-1, 761-2 at 7-9). Therefore, because
this Court lacks the authority to place Humphrey on home
confinement and because she is unable to meet the statutory
requirements to challenge the BOP's decision regarding
home confinement, this Motion is denied.
it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and
Marie Humphrey's pro se Amended Motion for Relief under
the First Step Act (Doc. # 762) is DENIED.