UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-cv-61036-Bloom/O’Sullivan

Case No. 14-cr-60103-BB

BRANDON L. MEDINA,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant. 

_________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Emergency Motion for Compassionate 

Release, ECF No. [15] (“Motion”), submitted by Plaintiff Brandon L. Medina’s mother, Michele 

Medina (“Movant”).1 The Court has considered the Motion, the record in this case, the applicable 

law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied.

According to the Motion, Plaintiff “has health issues already in effect” and the COVID-19 

pandemic has apparently made its way to the correctional facility where Plaintiff is currently 

housed. Movant requests early release on Plaintiff’s behalf. Upon review, the Motion is 

unwarranted—procedurally and substantively.

On the procedural side, the Motion fails to present any power of attorney or other authority 

conferring standing on Movant to seek the present relief. While the Court certainly appreciates 

that the Movant is Plaintiff’s mother (the Defendant in the criminal case), and understands her 

concern, that status does not establish the requisite legal authority. It is also unclear whether 

1 The Motion was filed in both the civil case and the underlying criminal case. For purposes of 

analysis, citations to the instant civil docket will use “ECF No.” while citations to the criminal 

docket will use “CR ECF No.”

Case 0:20-cv-61036-BB Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2020 Page 1 of 4
Case No. 20-cv-61036-Bloom/O’Sullivan

2

Plaintiff is even aware that a motion has been filed requesting compassionate release, especially 

as the Motion represents that Plaintiff has not been able to use a phone because of the lockdown 

at the correctional facility. Id. at 1. The Motion can be denied on this basis alone. Second, even if 

Movant had standing to bring the Motion, it runs afoul of Local Rule 7.1(d), which governs 

emergency motions. Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) directs that a filer requesting emergency action “must 

set forth in detail the nature of the emergency, the date by which a ruling is necessary, and the 

reason the ruling is needed by the stated date.” Id. The filer, moreover, must “certify that the matter 

is a true emergency” by including certain language above the motion’s signature block. Here, 

Movant fails to comply with these requirements set forth in the Local Rule. The Motion can 

independently be denied on this basis alone. See id. (explaining that the “unwarranted designation 

of a motion as an emergency motion may result in sanctions” and that an “unwarranted certification 

may lead to sanctions”).

When a party certifies a motion as an emergency, “it is akin to sounding an alarm in the 

chambers of the district court judge and the magistrate judge assigned to the case.” VMR Prod., 

LLC v. Elec. Cigarettes Outlet, LLC, No. 12-23092, 2013 WL 5567320, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 3, 

2013). The Court and judicial staff must immediately set other matters aside to quickly address the 

emergency. Id. Examples of a bona fide emergency include “risks to the health and safety of 

individuals, situations where a person is about to be deported, scenarios involving the imminent 

destruction of property, circumstances under which a business is in real danger of immediate 

failure or significant financial collapse, or cases where someone is at risk of being denied an 

essential service.” Id. The grounds raised in the Motion do not constitute an emergency.

Finally, on the substantive side, the Motion fails to present any basis to invoke 

compassionate release apart from a reference to Plaintiff’s “health issues,” which are not described 

Case 0:20-cv-61036-BB Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2020 Page 2 of 4
Case No. 20-cv-61036-Bloom/O’Sullivan

3

or otherwise supported. But more importantly, the Court already considered and denied Plaintiff’s 

prior motion for compassionate release in his criminal case on September 11, 2020. See Case No. 

14-cr-60103, CR ECF No. [156] (“Order”). That earlier request was founded largely on Plaintiff’s 

concerns about contracting a severe case of the virus given his underlying medical conditions, such 

as obesity, hypertension, high cholesterol, and generalized anxiety disorder. In the Order, the Court 

noted that although it was sympathetic to Plaintiff’s health conditions and his concerns regarding 

COVID-19 outbreaks in prison facilities, he nonetheless failed to satisfy the “extraordinary and 

compelling reasons” test to warrant compassionate release. Id. at 6. 

Shortly after the Order was issued, Plaintiff filed a Letter for Consideration, again 

requesting the Court to reduce his sentence and grant him compassionate release. CR ECF No.

[157]. The Court denied that motion, which it construed as a motion for reconsideration, given the 

Order and there were “no additional facts or circumstances that warrant reconsideration.” CR ECF 

No. [159] (“Reconsideration Order”). The instant Motion, now filed several weeks after the Order 

and Reconsideration Order were issued, fails to present any bases for another reconsideration of 

the Order. The Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s health concerns and Movant’s concerns for her 

son’s wellbeing, but “the BOP Director has not found COVID-19 alone to be a basis for 

compassionate release.” United States v. Harris, No. 2:12-cr-140-FtM-29DNF, 2020 WL 

1969951, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 24, 2020) (citing United States v. Eberhart, No. 13-cr-313-PJH-1, 

2020 WL 1450745, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2020) (“General concerns about possible exposure 

to COVID-19 do not meet the criteria for extraordinary and compelling reasons for a reduction in 

sentence set forth in the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement on compassionate release, 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13.”)); see also United States v. Kelly, No. 2:03-cr-126-FtM-29, 2020 WL 

2039726, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2020) (The “defendant does not allege any extraordinary or 

Case 0:20-cv-61036-BB Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2020 Page 3 of 4
Case No. 20-cv-61036-Bloom/O’Sullivan

4

compelling circumstances to support compassionate release.”). Therefore, the Motion is 

unavailing.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

1. The Emergency Motion for Compassionate Release in Case Number 20-cv-61036, 

ECF No. [15], is DENIED.

2. The Emergency Motion for Compassionate Release in Case Number 14-cr-60103, 

ECF No. [161], is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on October 22, 2020.

 ________________________________

 BETH BLOOM

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of record

Brandon L. Medina

05196-104

Allenwood Medium

Federal Correctional Institution

Inmate Mail/Parcels

Post Office Box 2000

White Deer, PA 17887

Case 0:20-cv-61036-BB Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2020 Page 4 of 4