United States District Court, D. New Jersey
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
June 1, 2017, Movant Anthony Spruill, was sentenced by this
Court to a term of imprisonment of forty-eight (48) months
after a conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribution heroin. ECF No. 51. Spruill is presently
incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary at Canaan in
Waymart, Pennsylvania, and has filed a motion by letter
requesting to be released to home confinement as an elderly
offender based on the recently-enacted First Step Act of 2018
(“the Act”), Pub. L. No. 115-015, 132 Stat. 015
(2018). ECF No. 57. Movant is presently set to be released on
January 30, 2021, according to the Bureau of Prison's
the extent that he seeks a modification of his sentence, the
Court is without jurisdiction to grant such relief or resolve
his motion in the context of his underlying criminal case.
Ordinarily, a sentencing court “may not modify a term
of imprisonment once it has been imposed” except in
certain limited circumstances set forth in the governing
statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3582, and not applicable here.
Rather than seek a modification of criminal sentence, what
Movant Spruill apparently seeks is judicial review of a
Bureau of Prisons decision not to grant him release to home
confinement as an elderly offender at this
Accordingly, Spruill's application challenges not the
sentence imposed (nor seeks its modification) but rather how
the sentence is executed by the BOP. His motion therefore
sounds in habeas and was improperly filed as a motion in his
underlying criminal case. More precisely, a prisoner's
challenge to his eligibility for placement in home
confinement is properly brought as a petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
See, e.g., Woodall v. Federal Bureau of
Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 238-39 (3d Cir. 2005); Briley
v. Ortiz, No. 17-cv-3535, 2017 WL 4228059 (D.N.J. Sept.
Properly construed as a § 2241 petition and not a
criminal motion, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider
it. A § 2241 petition must be brought in the
prisoner's district of confinement. Rumsfeld v.
Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004). Petitioner's
district of confinement based on his incarceration at USP
Canaan is the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
sum, the Court construes Movant's letter request as a
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 and will sua sponte transfer it to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
IT IS on this 24th day of October, 2019,
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to open a new
matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, docket the
above-referenced letter request, ECF No. 57 and all
subsequent docket entries, including this Memorandum and
Order, therein [Docket Nos. 57 - 63 inclusive plus this
Memorandum and Order]; and it is further
that the Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the letter
request, ECF No. 57, in the criminal case only to the extent
that it appears as a motion; and it is further
that the newly-opened matter shall be transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; and
it is further
that the Clerk of the Court shall effectuate the transfer on
an expedited basis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1406(a)
and 1631; and it is finally
that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order