Pullen v. Merendino
1:20-cv-00480
W.D. La.May 12, 2020Background
- Petitioner Bobby Pullen is a federal inmate at FCI Pollock, convicted of possession with intent to distribute marijuana and sentenced to 262 months; his conviction was previously affirmed on appeal.
- Pullen alleges he has served over 75% of his sentence with a projected release date in September 2024.
- He filed an "Emergency Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief" invoking 18 U.S.C. § 3626 and sought immediate release to home confinement because he is particularly susceptible to COVID-19.
- The Court provided habeas (§ 2241) forms because the petition sought immediate release; Pullen moved to clarify and later appealed the magistrate judge’s recharacterization ruling.
- The magistrate judge concluded Pullen failed to meet PLRA (§ 3626) prerequisites, had not exhausted BOP administrative remedies under the CARES Act, and did not properly pursue compassionate-release relief under § 3582; recommended denial and dismissal without prejudice and denial of the appeal as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (PLRA) to obtain a prisoner-release order | Pullen styled his petition under § 3626 and sought release to home confinement due to COVID-19 risk | Pullen failed to allege exhaustion or the statutory prerequisites for a prisoner-release order; relief under § 3626 is limited and requires specific showings and procedures | Denied — Pullen did not plead or prove requirements of § 3626; relief unavailable |
| Relief under the CARES Act (home confinement authority) | Pullen claims he applied for CARES Act home confinement and that BOP should place him in home confinement | CARES Act vests discretionary authority in the Attorney General/BOP to expand home confinement; it does not create an individual right and administrative remedies are the initial avenue | Denied — CARES Act does not independently entitle Pullen to release; BOP discretion and administrative exhaustion required |
| Compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) / First Step Act | (Implicit) Pullen seeks sentence modification or release given COVID-19 risk | Such motions must be filed in the sentencing court and require exhaustion of administrative remedies | Dismissed without prejudice to seeking compassionate release in the sentencing court after exhaustion |
| Appeal seeking clarification/recharacterization of petition | Pullen asked for recharacterization or jurisdictional finding; appealed the magistrate judge’s denial of clarification | The petition, under any construction, does not entitle Pullen to relief | Appeal denied as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (recognizes a limited implied damages remedy against federal officers for certain constitutional violations)
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (habeas is the proper vehicle to challenge the execution of a sentence)
- Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 (no constitutional right to placement in a particular prison)
- Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827 (5th Cir.) (procedural context for prisoner claims)
- Hernandez v. Mesa, 885 F.3d 811 (5th Cir.) (limitations on Bivens claims)
- Moore v. United States Attorney General, 473 F.2d 1375 (5th Cir.) (Executive branch authority over prisoner designation)
- Ledesma v. United States, 445 F.2d 1323 (5th Cir.) (placement/designation of prisoners is executive discretion)