454 F.Supp.3d 217
W.D.N.Y.2020Background:
- Defendant Brett Schultz pleaded guilty to attempted receipt of child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A)) after online sexual communications with an undercover officer he believed to be a minor.
- Court sentenced Schultz on March 7, 2018 to 87 months’ imprisonment (Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea), with a projected release in May 2023; he is incarcerated at FCI Elkton.
- On April 7, 2020 Schultz moved for compassionate release / time-served or home confinement under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), citing asthma and a COVID-19 outbreak at FCI Elkton; he alleged he requested BOP relief the same day but submitted no proof.
- The government opposed, focusing on the statutory exhaustion requirement in § 3582(c)(1)(A).
- The court analyzed the statute’s plain text and precedent, concluding Congress’s exhaustion mandate (with only a built-in 30‑day lapse rule) is mandatory and not subject to judge‑made equitable exceptions.
- Holding: Schultz failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required; the motion was denied without prejudice.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3582(c)(1)(A)’s administrative‑exhaustion requirement can be excused in light of COVID‑19 | Schultz: court should excuse exhaustion given pandemic risk and his asthma | Government: statutory exhaustion is mandatory and must be enforced | Court: exhaustion is statutorily mandatory, not judicially waivable; exceptions cannot be judicially created |
| Whether Schultz satisfied § 3582(c)(1)(A) exhaustion before filing | Schultz: he applied to BOP on April 7 (assertion; no proof provided) | Government: no evidence BOP request/administrative exhaustion occurred | Court: Schultz did not show exhaustion; motion denied without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 560 U.S. 242 (2010) (statutory text and ordinary‑meaning principles govern exhaustion analysis)
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016) (distinguishing statutory exhaustion from judge‑made doctrines; mandatory statutory regimes foreclose judicially created exceptions)
- Theodoropoulos v. I.N.S., 358 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2004) (statutory exhaustion requirements must be strictly enforced)
- Bastek v. Fed. Crop Ins. Corp., 145 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 1998) (statutory exhaustion is mandatory; courts may not dispense with it)
- McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140 (1992) (discussing exceptions to judge‑made exhaustion doctrines)