UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

v. ) Cause No. 1:16-CR-43-HAB 

 ) 

FREDERICK MOORE ) 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 Now before the Court is Defendant’s letter (ECF No. 179) requesting that the Court 

reconsider its denial of his previous motion for compassionate release. The Court finds no reason 

to reconsider its prior ruling, but there is no reason for the Court to go that far. Defendant has failed 

to exhaust all administrative remedies, and the Government has called him on that failure. 

Accordingly, his request for compassionate release must be dismissed. 

 Provided with Defendant’s reply (ECF No. 188) is a form titled Inmate Request to Staff 

Member Response. (Id. at 2). This form is the warden’s response to Defendant’s request for 

compassionate release. The form indicates that Defendant made his request for release on 

December 2, 2020, and the warden’s response is dated December 8, 2020. After reviewing 

Defendant’s request and the relevant policy guidance, the warden declines to release Defendant 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). At the end of the response, the warden advises Defendant as 

follows: 

If you are not satisfied with this response to your request, you may commence an 

appeal of this decision via the administrative remedy process by submitting your 

concerns on the appropriate form (BP-9) within 20 days of the receipt of this 

response. 

(ECF No. 188 at 2). There is no indication that Defendant took any further steps down the 

administrative path. Instead, he filed the instant letter with the Court on December 30, 2020. 

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cr-00043-HAB-SLC document 189 filed 02/03/21 page 1 of 2
 For most of the life of the COVID-related compassionate release phenomenon, there was 

considerable confusion as to whether exhaustion of remedies was jurisdictional, a claimsprocessing rule, or wholly unnecessary. That confusion was resolved, at least in this circuit, by the 

Seventh Circuit’s decision in U.S. v. Sanford, __ F.3d __ (7th Cir. Jan. 25, 2021). There, the Court 

answered affirmatively the question of “whether the exhaustion requirement is a mandatory claimprocessing rule and therefore must be enforced when properly invoked.” Id. at *6 (original 

emphasis). Where, as here, the Government raises exhaustion as a defense (see ECF No. 183 at 5–

9), a defendant must demonstrate that he has presented his request for release to the warden at his 

facility, and either: (1) he has exhausted administrative appeals (if the request was denied); or (2) 

he has waited “30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant’s facility” 

to seek relief from the Court. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 

 Here, the warden timely responded to Defendant’s request for release with a denial. The 

warden laid out the appeal process for Defendant. On the record before the Court, there is no 

evidence that Defendant pursued an administrative appeal; the short time frame between the denial 

and Defendant’s correspondence with this Court indicate that Defendant could not have exhausted 

his administrative remedies prior to requesting relief from the Court. Defendant has not complied 

with the requirements of § 3582, and his request for compassionate release (ECF No. 179) is 

DISMISSED. 

SO ORDERED on February 3, 2021. 

 s/ Holly A. Brady 

JUDGE HOLLY A. BRADY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cr-00043-HAB-SLC document 189 filed 02/03/21 page 2 of 2