in Re: Deborah Morris v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 3d Cir. 1996 . Morris seeks to compel the District Court to…

BLD-268 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-2308
___________
IN RE: DEBORAH MORRIS,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to D.C. Criminal No. 05-cr-00613)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
July 30, 2009
Before: McKEE, FISHER and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed September 16, 2009)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Deborah Morris filed this pro se petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1651 seeking an order compelling the District Court to modify her sentence of
imprisonment to home confinement. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the
petition.
Morris is currently serving a 60-month sentence of imprisonment at the Alderson

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Federal Prison Camp in West Virginia for multiple fraud convictions arising from a
scheme in which she obtained reimbursements from the Medicare program for clinical
services never performed. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania imposed the sentence in 2007. Morris’ counseled, direct appeal of her
conviction and sentence is currently pending before this Court (C.A. No. 07-4258).
In August 2008, Morris filed a motion asking the District Court to suspend her
sentence of imprisonment and modify it to home confinement. She claimed she was
receiving inadequate medical care for numbness, dizziness, and leg weakness and that
the Federal Bureau of Prisons would “seek retaliatory measures” against her by moving
her to a medical facility distant from her family and counsel. The District Court denied
the motion. About six months later, in March 2009, Morris filed a second motion seeking
home confinement on the basis that it would enable her both to receive the medical care
she wants and to work so that she could begin paying the restitution portion of her
sentence. The District Court denied this motion on March 23, 2009, on the basis that it
lacked jurisdiction to modify her sentence, whose implementation is now under the
authority and discretion of the Bureau of Prisons. Morris filed her petition for a writ of
mandamus with this Court on May 13, 2009.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in the most extraordinary of
circumstances. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir.
2005). To demonstrate that mandamus is appropriate, a petitioner must establish that she
has a “clear and indisputable” right to the issuance of the writ and that she has “no other

-- 2 of 4 --

3
adequate means” to obtain the relief desired. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir.
1996).
Morris seeks to compel the District Court to modify her sentence, which was
imposed almost two years ago. Once a term of imprisonment has been imposed, a district
court has the authority to modify it only in limited circumstances. Under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c), those circumstances are: (1) when the Director of the Bureau of Prisons moves
for a reduction in the term of imprisonment on the basis of what is sometimes called the
“compassionate relief” provisions; (2) when Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35
permits such modification; or (3) when the sentencing range under which a defendant was
sentenced has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. None of these
circumstances are present in this case. The Director of the Bureau of Prisons has not
moved for a reduction in Morris’ term of confinement and Morris does not seek a
reduction based on a change in the Sentencing Guidelines. Finally, Rule 35 provides no
authority for the District Court to grant Morris’ request to modify her sentence because
more than seven days have passed since sentencing. See United States v. Higgs, 504 F.3d
456, 463 (3d Cir. 2007) (holding that the seven-day time requirement in Rule 35(a) is
jurisdictional).
Once a sentence is imposed, the Bureau of Prisons is responsible for implementing
it, including the designation of the place of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3586,
3621(b). The Bureau has in place an administrative remedy program, as well as
procedures for requesting compassionate release and criteria for home confinement. See

-- 3 of 4 --

1 The administrative remedy request forms Morris attached to her first motion to
modify her sentence show that she asked only “to be seen by a neurologist locally or by
my private neurologist.”
4
28 C.F.R. §§ 542.10 et seq., 571.60 et seq.; U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Fed. Bureau of Prisons,
Program Statement 7320.01: Home Confinement (1995). Morris apparently believes that
this system is inadequate, although it does not appear from her filings before this Court
and the District Court that she has requested home confinement from the Bureau of
Prisons. 1 Furthermore, her mere belief does not alter the fact that the District Court lacks
authority to modify her sentence or that other avenues for redress exist. Because Morris
has not shown a clear and indisputable right to issuance of the relief she seeks, we will
deny her petition for a writ of mandamus.

-- 4 of 4 --