United States v. Brown, 2:92-cr-81127

Defendant John Gordon filed a second pro se motion (Jan 20, 2022) seeking compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) as amended by the First Step Act.
The Court previously denied Gordon’s first compassionate-release motion on the merits, finding no extraordinary and compelling reasons and that the § 3553(a) factors did not favor release.
The renewed motion did not allege that Gordon resubmitted a request to the BOP warden, completed administrative appeals, or waited 30 days after a warden request as required by the statute.
The Sixth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Alam requires full administrative exhaustion or a 30-day lapse before a court may consider a prisoner’s self-filed compassionate-release motion; that exhaustion rule is mandatory when the government timely objects.
The Court explained that a prior judicial denial does not excuse the statutory exhaustion requirement for a renewed or newly grounded request; local rules also preclude successive motions for reconsideration.
Because Gordon failed to show he exhausted administrative remedies, the Court denied his renewed motion without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gordon exhausted administrative remedies required by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)	Gordon failed to show he submitted a new request to the warden or waited 30 days; court cannot consider motion without exhaustion	Gordon sought judicial relief via renewed pro se motion (implicitly contends court should rule)	Court denied motion for failure to exhaust; exhaustion is required before judicial review
Whether the exhaustion requirement may be excused given prior judicial consideration	Government argues exhaustion is mandatory and not excused where timely raised	Gordon may have argued prior denial or delay makes exhaustion unnecessary	Court held prior denial does not excuse exhaustion; Alam controls that exhaustion is mandatory
Whether the motion was a timely/reproper request for reconsideration	Government relies on local rules barring successive reconsideration and timeliness limits	Gordon sought renewed relief but did not meet Local Rule 7.1(h) timing or process	Court treated motion as untimely/successive and denied without prejudice; ordered exhaustion before refile

United States v. Alam, 960 F.3d 831 (6th Cir. 2020) (holds that a prisoner must fully exhaust administrative remedies or wait 30 days after a request to the warden before a court may consider a self-filed compassionate-release motion; the exhaustion rule is mandatory when the government timely objects)