United States v. Johnson

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LEON ANTONIO JOHNSON, JR., Defendant.

Case No. 11-20493

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

March 4, 2021

Hon. Mark A. Goldsmith

OPINION & ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE (Dkt. 378)

Defendant Leon Antonio Johnson, Jr. pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute heroin and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, 841(b)(1)(A)(I) and 851. See Judgment (Dkt. 282). On August 28, 2014, Judge John Corbett O'Meara sentenced Johnson to 120 months' imprisonment. Id.¹ Johnson began serving his custodial sentence on February 2, 2015. He is now incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Morgantown, West Virginia. Johnson's projected release date is February 2, 2023.

On January 13, 2021, Johnson filed the instant motion for compassionate release asking the Court "to extend humanitarian relief to his family and him in the detrimental wake of [COVID-19]." Def. Mot. at 1 (Dkt. 378). Johnson argues that release is warranted because he is at high risk for severe illness from COVID-19 due to his weight (BMI above 30), his arthritis, his status as a smoker, his age (45), and his race (Black). Id. at 8-10. According to Johnson, he was diagnosed with COVID-19 on November 30, 2020 and is thus at risk of contracting COVID-19 a second time. Id. at 8. Johnson separately argues that release is warranted to permit him to care for his elderly parents who are "in need of his physical support at home and mental inspiration." Id. at 11. In addition to seeking compassionate release, Johnson asks the Court to order that his current 120-month sentence be run concurrently with a separate 30-month sentence for violation of supervised release or, alternatively, that he be given a 30-month credit against his current sentence. Id. at 19. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Johnson's motion.

I. BACKGROUND

From August 2010 to July 2011, Johnson participated in a conspiracy to distribute heroin and cocaine in the Detroit, Michigan and Youngstown, Ohio areas. Plea Agreement at 2 (Dkt. 254). Judge O'Meara sentenced Johnson to 120 months for his role in this conspiracy. See Judgment. This was not Johnson's first drug trafficking conviction. He previously pleaded guilty to several drug related offenses in a case before Judge Lawrence Zatkoff. United States v. Johnson, Case No. 05-cr-80810-14 (E.D. Mich.). On December 14, 2006, Johnson was sentenced to 36 months' imprisonment followed by three years' supervised release. See 12/14/2006 Judgment (Case No. 05-cr-80810-14, Dkt. 411). When Johnson was indicted in the instant case, he was found to have violated the terms of his supervised release; accordingly, Judge Zatkoff sentenced him to thirty months' imprisonment. See 4/20/2012 Judgment (Case No. 05-cr-80810-14, Dkt. 571).

On May 4, 2020, Johnson sent a request for compassionate release to the warden of FCI Morgantown, Warden Bowers. See Request for Release and Denial, Ex. A to Gov. Resp. (Dkt. 387-2). Johnson's request sought release "to extend humanitarian relief to [Johnson's] family and him in the wake of [COVID-19]." Id. at PageID.2008. Johnson provided that his family "is in need of his physical support and mental inspiration," and that "Mr. Johnson['s] life is also in immediate threat from being in a high vulnerable risk of contracting the COVID-19 in an open bay cubical dorm housing unit," and social distancing "is impossible to practice." Id. at PageID.2008-2009. In a response dated May 15, 2020, Warden Bowers denied Johnson's request. Id. at PageID.2011. On June 1, 2020, Johnson filed an appeal to the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") Mid-Atlantic regional office. Regional Appeal and Denial, Ex. B to Gov. Resp. (Dkt. 387-3). On June 30, 2020, Johnson refiled the regional appeal. See id. at PageID.2013. In a response dated October 1, 2020, the regional director denied Johnson's appeal, explaining that, although Johnson was "requesting to be considered for Compassionate Release because of the COVID-19 pandemic and health concerns," he was "Healthy, Simple Chronic Care, and are classified as a Medical Care Level I" and thus did "not meet the criteria for Compassionate Release." Id. On October 21, 2020, Johnson filed an appeal to the BOP central office. Central Office Appeal and Denial, Ex. C to Gov. Resp. (Dkt. 387-4). In a response dated January 29, 2021, the BOP administrator of national inmate appeals denied Johnson's appeal. Id. at PageID.2015.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The First Step Act modified the statute concerning the compassionate release of federal prisoners, 18 U.S.C. § 3582, such that district courts may entertain motions filed by incarcerated defendants seeking to reduce their sentences. United States v. Ruffin, 978 F.3d 1000, 1003-1004 (6th Cir. 2020). Before granting a compassionate-release motion, a district court must engage in a three-step inquiry: (i) the court must "find" that "extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant [a sentence] reduction," (ii) it must ensure "that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission," and (iii) it must "consider[] all relevant sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)." United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098, 1101 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)). If all of those requirements are met, the district court "may reduce the term of imprisonment," but it need not do so. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

Regarding the first step of the inquiry, the Sixth Circuit has held that, with respect to motions for compassionate release filed by imprisoned individuals, "extraordinary and compelling" reasons are not limited to those set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. Jones, 980 F.3d at 1109. It further held that "[u]ntil the Sentencing Commission updates § 1B1.13 to reflect the First Step Act, district courts have full discretion in the interim to determine whether an 'extraordinary and compelling' reason justifies compassionate release when an imprisoned person files a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion." Id.

Although courts are not required to consider § 1B1.13 in ruling on compassionate release motions brought directly by inmates, United States v. Elias, 984 F.3d 516, 519 (6th Cir. 2021), § 1B1.13 still provides a useful working definition of "extraordinary and compelling reasons," and thus may be consulted to "guide discretion without being conclusive," United States v. Gunn, 980 F.3d 1178, 1180 (7th Cir. 2020) (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50 (2007); Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007)). In the commentary to § 1B1.13, the Sentencing Commission has enumerated several extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying a reduction of sentence, including the "Medical Condition of the Defendant," "Age of the Defendant," and "Family Circumstances." U.S.S.G. 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A)-(C). Some examples of compelling reasons are medical conditions "with an end of life trajectory," a defendant's serious physical deterioration related to the aging process, and death or incapacitation of a caregiver of a defendant's minor child or children. Id. The Guidelines also contemplate "Other Reasons" where the defendant has "extraordinary and compelling reasons other than, or in combination with," the other enumerated reasons. U.S.S.G. 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(D).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Exhaustion

Before seeking compassionate release from federal courts, prisoners must "fully exhaust[] all administrative rights," or, alternatively, wait for 30 days after the warden's "receipt of [their] request." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The Sixth Circuit has held that there are no statutory exceptions to this exhaustion requirement. United States v. Alam, 960 F.3d 831, 835-836 (6th Cir. 2020).

As another court within this district has held, "[w]here the factual basis in the administrative request and the motion before the court are different, a defendant does not satisfy the exhaustion requirement because he does not give the BOP an opportunity to act on the request before Defendant brings his request to the courts." United States v. Asmar, 465 F. Supp. 3d 716, 719 (E.D. Mich. 2020) (citations omitted). In this case, the Government concedes that Johnson requested compassionate release from the Warden, but argues that Johnson nevertheless failed to comply with § 3582(c)(1)(A)'s mandatory exhaustion requirement because Johnson's request to the Warden did not reference "his alleged obesity or arthritis, his history as a smoker . . . , and their relationship to the risk of contracting a severe illness from the virus that causes COVID19." Gov. Resp. at 16 (Dkt. 387). Rather, the Government argues, "Johnson's request to the Warden seeking compassionate release focused on the generalized danger of COVID-19 in "open bay cubical dorm housing" and the difficulties practicing social distancing while incarcerated." Id.

The Court disagrees. In both in his motion for compassionate release before this Court and his request to the Warden, Johnson seeks "to extend humanitarian relief to [Johnson's] family and him in the wake of [COVID-19]." Compare Request and Denial at PageID.2008, with Def. Mot. at. 1. In his request, Johnson provided that his family "is in need of his physical support and mental inspiration." Id. He similarly seeks release in the present motion for compassionate release to permit him to care for his elderly parents who are "in need of his physical support at home and mental inspiration." Def. Mot. at 11. Further, Johnson provided in his request that his "life is also in immediate threat from being in a high vulnerable risk of contracting the COVID-19 in an open bay cubical dorm housing unit . . . ." Request and Denial at PageID.2008-2009. The fact that Johnson explicitly sets forth his health conditions in his motion for compassionate release does not mean that the factual bases in his request to the Warden...