United States of America v. Hudson et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CR-16-119-R
)
)
AISHA BLISS DONALDSON, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
The Court is in receipt of an undated letter filed August 20, 2020 from Defendant
Aisha Donaldson (Doc. No. 1742), which it construes as a Motion for Compassionate
Release pursuant to the First Step Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), or alternatively, a
Motion for Home Confinement under the CARES Act.1 For the reasons set forth herein,
Defendant’s Motion is DISMISSED.
Prior to the passage of the First Step Act, only the Director of the Bureau of Prisons
(BOP) could seek compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). The Act, passed in
December of 2018, enables defendants to seek modification of a term of imprisonment
directly from the Court in the event the BOP, via the warden, declines to file such a motion.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). A defendant may seek relief only “after … fully
exhaust[ing] all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the [BOP] to bring a motion on
1 Defendant is serving a sentence of imprisonment of 84 months following her conviction for violating 21 U.S.C.
§ 846, which prohibits conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute heroin. Pursuant to the Bureau of Prisons
inmate locator, Defendant is currently scheduled to complete her sentence on July 15, 2022.
Case 5:16-cr-00119-R Document 1756 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 3

2
[her] behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the
defendant’s facility, whichever is earlier…”. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Defendant does
not represent that she requested that the warden file a compassionate release motion on her
behalf. Accordingly, she has failed to meet her burden of showing she fully exhausted all
her administrative remedies. See United States v. Caplinger, No. CR-18-66-SLP, Doc. No.
175, at 4–5 (W.D. Okla. May 11, 2020)(finding under § 3582(c)(1)(A) that the defendant
bears the burden of showing that s[he] exhausted administrative remedies.”). Thus,
Defendant’s request for compassionate release must be dismissed.
Alternatively, Defendant requests that the Court order her sentence to be completed
on home confinement in conjunction with the CARES Act. See Coronavirus, Aid, Relief,
and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), Pub. L. No. 116-136, § 12003(b)(2), 134 Stat.
281, 516 (2020). The CARES Act granted the BOP broad discretion to expand the use of
home confinement as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Act, however, did not
provide the Court with the authority to order home confinement—that authority remains
exclusively with the Bureau. See United States v. Graham, No. 11:20065-02-KHV, 2020
WL 1914895, *2 (D. Kan. Apr. 20, 2020) (“While the CARES Act gives the BOP broad
discretion to expand the use of home confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic,
[district courts] lack jurisdiction to order home detention under [the Act].”).
While the Court retains the ability to make a confinement recommendation to the
Bureau, 	including 	a 	home 	confinement 	recommendation 	pursuant 	to 	18 	U.S.C.
§ 3621(b)(4)(B), the Court declines to exercise its discretion considering the United States
Attorney General’s mandate that the Bureau consider whether home confinement would
Case 5:16-cr-00119-R Document 1756 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 3

3
be an appropriate placement for at-risk inmates.2 Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction and the
Defendant’s request for home confinement must also be dismissed.
Therefore, Defendant’s current Motion [Doc. No. 1742] is DISMISSED FOR
LACK OF JURISDICTION.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13 th day of October 2020.
2 See Memorandum from the Attorney General for the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, p. 2., Office of the Attorney
General (Apr. 3, 2020), https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/docs/bop_memo_home_confinement_april3.pdf (retrieved
September 14, 2020).
Case 5:16-cr-00119-R Document 1756 Filed 10/13/20 Page 3 of 3