United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Goldberg, No. 67605-054 Federal Correctional Institution -
Fort Dix Petitioner Pro se
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner's Motions
for Reconsideration of this Court's Opinion and Order
dismissing his Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
See ECF Nos. 7, 8. For the reasons explained below,
the Court will deny reconsideration.
initially filed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge the Bureau of
Prisons' refusal to file a motion on his behalf for a
compassionate release/sentence reduction pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). See ECF No. 1. The Court
summarily dismissed the Petition by Opinion and Order entered
May 24, 2017, because the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear
challenges regarding the BOP's decisions pursuant to
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). See ECF Nos. 5 (Opinion), 6
(Order). In so concluding, the Court relied on a recent
decision of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,
Fields v. Warden Allenwood USP, 684 F. App'x 121
(2017), and also cited case law from the Courts of Appeals
for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits. ECF No.
5 at 4-5.
may grant a motion for reconsideration if the moving party
shows one of the following: (1) an intervening change in the
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that
was not available when the court issued its order; or (3) the
need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent
manifest injustice. Johnson v. Diamond State Port
Corp., 50 F. App'x 554, 560 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting
Max's Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d
669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)). Local Rule 7.1 provides that
motions to reconsider shall be filed within fourteen (14)
days from the date of the entry of the order or judgment to
be reconsidered unless otherwise provided by
statute. See D.N.J. Loc. R. 7.
Motion for Reconsideration, Petitioner first argues that the
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, § 1B1.13, permit the Court
to consider whether compassionate release should be granted.
ECF No. 7 at 1-2. Petitioner's second argument is that
the holding in Woodall v. Bureau of Prisons, 432
F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2005), would support jurisdiction over his
§ 2241 claim. Id. at 2. Neither argument
represents an intervening change in the law nor the
availability of new evidence.
best, Petitioner seeks reconsideration based on a clear error
of law. As to his first argument, although the Court has the
authority to consider and grant compassionate release, it
lacks the authority to move for or sua sponte
consider such a request, which, as the Court detailed in its
Opinion, lies solely with the Bureau of Prisons pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). As to Petitioner's second
argument, the holding in Woodall applies only to a
statutorily mandated provision regarding community
confinement pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), enacted to
prepare a prisoner for re-entry into the community. As such,
there is no clear error of law to correct as to either
argument, and the Motion must be denied.
reasons set forth above, the Motion for Reconsideration will
be denied. An appropriate Order follows.