Laurel v. United States
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-03369
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Laurel v. United States, Judge Briccetti ordered the government to address exhaustion before deciding Laurel’s request for compassionate release.
Justin Laurel, who sought a sentence reduction, and the United States, which was ordered to state whether it would waive the administrative-exhaustion requirement.
What happened
In Laurel v. United States, Justin Laurel asked the court to reduce his prison sentence because of extraordinary and compelling reasons. He relied on a law allowing certain sentence reductions, but he acknowledged that he had not first completed the required administrative process with the Bureau of Prisons.
The court said the law contains an exhaustion requirement and that it could not waive that requirement. The court therefore asked the government to state in writing by May 8, 2020, whether it would agree to waive the requirement.
Judge Briccetti did not decide the release request in this order. He stated that if the government would not waive the requirement, the court would deny the motion without prejudice, allowing Laurel to file it again after completing the required process.
The detailed version
- Laurel v. United States · No. 7:20-cv-03369
- Vincent Briccetti
- May 1, 2020
Background
On April 29, 2020, defendant Justin Laurel filed a motion for what is commonly called compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). That provision allows a court to reduce a prison sentence if extraordinary and compelling reasons support a reduction, but it includes an administrative-exhaustion requirement. Before filing in court, a defendant must either fully pursue the Bureau of Prisons’ administrative appeal process concerning the agency’s failure to seek release or wait 30 days after the warden receives the request, whichever occurs earlier.
Laurel conceded that he had not fully exhausted his administrative remedies before filing the motion. The opinion does not describe the underlying reasons Laurel offered for release or decide whether those reasons were extraordinary and compelling.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that the exhaustion requirement is explicit and that the court did not have the power to waive it. The court cited a prior Southern District of New York decision addressing the same requirement.
Ruling
The court ordered the government to advise it in writing by May 8, 2020, whether it was willing to waive the exhaustion requirement in Laurel’s case. The court did not grant or deny the compassionate-release motion in this order. It stated that, if the government was unwilling to waive the requirement, the court would deny the motion without prejudice to refiling after Laurel satisfied the exhaustion requirement. The order also directed the court’s chambers to mail a copy to Laurel at the address listed in the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.