Flowers v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-08831
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Flowers v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Judge Schofield said the habeas petition was ready for decision and ordered the Bureau to serve this order.
Joe N. Flowers and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The order also directed questions about Flowers's compassionate-release motion to the judge presiding over his federal criminal case.
What happened
In Flowers v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Joe N. Flowers, who was incarcerated at FCI Otisville and represented himself, challenged the calculation of his federal sentence.
The Bureau of Prisons opposed the petition, and Flowers filed a reply. Flowers also asked the sentencing court for compassionate release because of concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield advised that the habeas petition was fully submitted and would be reviewed for decision. She explained that the compassionate-release motion belonged in the sentencing case and ordered the Bureau to mail Flowers a copy of the order or explain by May 19, 2020 why it could not do so.
The detailed version
- Flowers v. Federal Bureau of Prisons · No. 1:19-cv-08831
- Lorna Schofield
- May 15, 2020
Background
Joe N. Flowers, proceeding without a lawyer, was incarcerated at FCI Otisville. He challenged the calculation of his federal sentence, which arose from his judgment of conviction in a federal criminal case. The opinion states that the habeas petition was properly filed in the Southern District of New York because Flowers was incarcerated at a facility in that district.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons filed an opposition memorandum on January 14, 2020, and Flowers filed a reply on January 27, 2020. Flowers later mailed an ex parte letter about the petition's status and concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic. On May 4, 2020, he also filed a motion for compassionate release in the federal criminal case.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield advised Flowers that his habeas petition was fully submitted and would be reviewed for decision. This order did not decide whether the Bureau of Prisons correctly calculated his sentence.
The court explained that a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) should be filed with the sentencing court, as Flowers had done. The court noted that the government had been directed to respond to that motion by May 26, 2020, and stated that further questions about compassionate release should be directed to Judge Larimer, who was presiding over the federal criminal case.
The court ordered the Bureau of Prisons, by May 19, 2020, either to mail Flowers a copy of the order and file proof of service or to file a letter explaining why it could not do so so that the court could seek another arrangement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.