UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 1:15-cr-20314 

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

 Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris 

SAMUEL LEE CURNEY, 

 

 Defendant. 

________________________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE 

RELEASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

 This matter is before this Court upon Defendant Samuel Lee Curney’s Motion for 

Compassionate Release. ECF No. 57. For the reason stated below, Defendant’s Motion will be 

denied without prejudice. 

 In May 2015, a grand jury indicted Defendant for one count of distribution of heroin in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). ECF No. 1. Defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 140 

months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. ECF No. 19. In July 2021, Defendant 

filed a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), which was denied 

without prejudice for lack of exhaustion in August 2021. See ECF Nos. 54; 56. 

On September 16, 2021, Defendant filed a second motion for compassionate release, which 

the Government contests. See ECF Nos. 57; 58. Defendant’s Motion requests “home 

confinement,” because his son’s caregiver, Defendant’s sister, “has been diagnosed with 

Hashimoto and is very ill.” ECF No. 57 at PageID.323, 324. 

I. 

Case 1:15-cr-20314-TLL-PTM ECF No. 59, PageID.365 Filed 10/05/21 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

A motion for relief under section 3582(c)(1)(A) requires exhaustion. That is, Defendant 

may file a motion for a reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A) only after requesting a reduction from the 

Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and then either (1) “fully exhaust[ing] all administrative rights” or (2) 

waiting until “30 days [have elapsed] from the receipt of such a request by the warden.” See 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). That first step is a “mandatory claim-processing rule[]” that “must be 

enforced” if “properly invoked.” United States v. Alam, 960 F.3d 831, 834 (6th Cir. 2020). 

II. 

 Defendant requested compassionate release from the BOP, which it denied. ECF No. 58-3 

at PageID.361–63. In his requests to the BOP, Defendant cited changes in the law and his health, 

but the instant Motion cites his sister’s health. Compare ECF No. 58-3 at PageID.361–63 (noting 

to the BOP “the status of my mental and physical health”), and ECF No. 57 at PageID.322 (noting 

to the BOP “new laws, statutes, and Supreme Court rulings”), with id. at PageID.324 (noting to 

this Court that his “sister . . . has become very ill with Hashimoto”), and ECF No. 54 at PageID.297 

(noting to this Court that his son’s sole caregiver “has been diagnosed with Hashimoto”). 

The Government argues that, based on United States v. Asmar, Defendant has not satisfied 

the exhaustion requirement because the instant Motion presents an issue that was not presented to 

the BOP. 465 F. Supp. 3d 716, 719 (E.D. Mich. 2020) (“Where the factual basis in the 

administrative request and the motion before the court are different, a defendant does not satisfy 

the exhaustion requirement . . . .”); see also United States v. Williams, 987 F.3d 700, 704 (7th Cir. 

2021) (holding that an inmate must raise the same issues in the BOP and federal court to exhaust 

under section 3582(c)(1)(A)). Contra United States v. Ferguson, No. 10-20403, 2021 WL 

1685944, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 29, 2021) (“The Court is persuaded by the reasoning of the courts 

which have held § 3582(c)(1)(A) does not require issue exhaustion.”). 

Case 1:15-cr-20314-TLL-PTM ECF No. 59, PageID.366 Filed 10/05/21 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

That difference is not necessarily fatal to Defendant’s Motion.1

 But the purpose of section 

3582(c)(1)(A)’s exhaustion requirement is to ensure the BOP can consider an inmate’s request 

first. See United States v. Alam, 960 F.3d 831, 835–36 (6th Cir. 2020). And the BOP has not yet 

had the opportunity to consider whether the Hashimoto diagnosis justifies placing Defendant in 

home confinement. Although this Court may consider arguments not presented to the BOP, 

Defendant’s Motion does not present circumstances exigent enough to remove the BOP from the 

equation. Therefore, Defendant has not satisfied his exhaustion requirement, and his Motion will 

be denied without prejudice.2

III. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Compassionate Release, ECF 

No. 57, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Dated: October 5, 2021 s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

1Respectfully, this Court disagrees with the Government’s proposed issue-exhaustion requirement. 

Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692, 709 n.7 (2011) (“A decision of a federal district court judge is 

not binding precedent in either a different judicial district, the same judicial district, or even upon 

the same judge in a different case.”). If Congress wanted to add an issue-exhaustion requirement, 

it would have enumerated it in section 3582(c)(1)(A)’s text. See Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, 

531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001) (“Congress . . . does not . . . hide elephants in mouseholes.”). Thus, as a 

requirement, issue exhaustion would be an extratextual judicial fiat. Indeed, section 3582(c)(1)(A) 

states that the court may grant the defendant’s motion “after the defendant has fully exhausted all 

administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the 

defendant’s behalf.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (emphasis added). It does not say “the same 

motion.” Moreover, an issue-exhaustion requirement would remove the courts’ discretion to 

consider “extraordinary and compelling” reasons for release that arise after the defendant’s request 

to the BOP. That limitation is also not in section 3582(c)(1)(A)’s text.

2

 Because Defendant’s Motion is being denied for not presenting his sister’s diagnosis to the BOP 

first, this Court need not reach the merits of Defendant’s allegations. But a verified incapacitating 

Hashimoto diagnosis of Defendant’s child’s sole caregiver would likely constitute an extraordinary 

and compelling reason for release if he submitted evidence to this Court showing (1) his sister’s 

medical diagnosis; (2) the diagnosis renders his sister an unsuitable caregiver; and (3) that his wife, 

mother, seven siblings, and child’s mother would be unsuitable caregivers. 

Case 1:15-cr-20314-TLL-PTM ECF No. 59, PageID.367 Filed 10/05/21 Page 3 of 3