Levine v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
245 F. Supp. 3d 149
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Robert M. Levine, a federal inmate serving multiple life sentences for murder-for-hire convictions, requested the BOP to file a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) in January 2014.
- Levine was 72 and had served 22 years when he requested relief, asserting multiple age-related medical conditions.
- BOP denied the request, stating Levine did not meet the statutory criteria for elderly inmates (had not served at least 30 years or 50% of a life term) and that his medical conditions were not extraordinary and compelling.
- Levine exhausted administrative remedies and sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) seeking review of BOP’s refusal.
- Defendants moved to dismiss; the Court found it had jurisdiction but concluded Levine failed to state an APA claim because BOP’s discretionary decision not to move for sentence reduction is not judicially reviewable and, alternatively, Levine did not meet statutory minimums for release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review BOP’s denial under the APA | Levine invoked the APA and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for review | Defendants challenged jurisdiction and urged habeas as the proper remedy or lack of standing | Court: Federal-question jurisdiction exists; habeas not required because relief would not necessarily shorten sentence; standing adequate at pleading stage |
| Whether BOP’s decision is reviewable under the APA | Levine argued BOP’s statement that his conditions were not "extraordinary and compelling" was reviewable agency action | Defendants argued BOP’s decision to file (or not file) a § 3582 motion is committed to agency discretion and not reviewable under the APA | Court: BOP’s decision is committed to agency discretion and not subject to APA review; claim fails |
| Whether Levine met the statutory criteria for compassionate release | Levine asserted age and medical conditions warranted release (72 years old, multiple conditions) | Defendants noted Levine had not served the statutory minimum (30 years / 50% of life term) required under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(ii) | Court: Even on the merits, Levine failed to meet statutory minimums, which independently defeats his claim |
| Whether the complaint states a claim under the APA | Levine sought relief from the BOP determination about "extraordinary and compelling" circumstances | Defendants asserted the APA claim is foreclosed because decision is discretionary | Court: Complaint does not state an APA claim; dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) |
Key Cases Cited
- Oryszak v. Sullivan, 576 F.3d 522 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (APA is not a jurisdiction‑conferring statute; district court jurisdiction derives from § 1331)
- Trudeau v. FTC, 456 F.3d 178 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (same principle regarding APA and jurisdiction)
- Davis v. U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, 716 F.3d 660 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (habeas required only when relief would necessarily imply invalidity or shorten confinement)
- Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) (distinguishing claims that must proceed via habeas)
- Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d 895 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (pleading-stage standards for injury and standing)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements and pleading standards)