Haynes v. United States ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ANTHONY HAYNES, Case No. 20-13394 Plaintiff, Stephanie Dawkins Davis v. United States District Judge UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. ____________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE WITH PREJUDICE [ECF NO. 1] I. INTRODUCTION Anthony Haynes, incarcerated at the Gilmer Federal Correctional Institution in Glenville, West Virginia, filed a motion for compassionate release. The motion is DISMISSED because this court lacks jurisdiction over the motion and because it is duplicative of Plaintiff’s motion for compassionate release that was before the sentencing judge in the Northern District of Ohio. II. BACKGROUND Haynes and his co-defendant were convicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio of sex trafficking and sexual exploitation of a minor child. The court sentenced Haynes to life in prison, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed his conviction on appeal. United States v. Jenkins, 821 F. App’x 504, 505 (6th Cir. 2020). Haynes filed a motion for compassionate release on October 30, 2020, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, which the court denied on January 28, 2021. See United States v. Haynes, No. 3:17-cr- 00158 (N.D. Ohio) (ECF No. 262). Plaintiff filed the present motion for compassionate release with this court on December 10, 2020, seeking release from federal prison due to the ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic. (ECF No. 1). For the reasons discussed below, the court DENIES Haynes’ motion. III. DISCUSSION A motion for compassionate release must be directed to the sentencing court. United States v. Raia, 954 F.3d 594, 595 (3d Cir. 2020) (noting that inmates must submit their requests for compassionate release to the sentencing court); Heard v. Quintana, 184 F. Supp. 3d 515, 521 (E.D. Ky. 2016) (stating that a motion for compassionate release “must be undertaken in the court where the prisoner was sentenced.”). This court lacks jurisdiction to consider Haynes’ motion for compassionate release because Haynes was not convicted or sentenced in this court. Haynes was convicted and sentenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Haynes, in fact, has filed a motion for compassionate release in the sentencing court, which was denied. Correspondingly, the current motion shall be dismissed as duplicative of Haynes’ motion for compassionate release in the Northern District of Ohio. See Hunter v. Martinez, No. 2:20-cv-05121, 2020 WL 3258398, at * 2-3 (C.D. Cal. June 12, 2020). IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for compassionate release [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. SO ORDERED. Dated: March 16, 2021 s/Stephanie Dawkins Davis Stephanie Dawkins Davis United States District Court Judge