Cardona v. Kizziah, No. 7:2017cv00091 - Document 3 (E.D. Ky. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Cardona's petition R. 1 is DENIED. 2. The Court will enter an appropriate judgment. 3. This matter is STRICKEN from the active docket. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 6/5/17.(MJY) cc: COR, Cardona via US Mail.
Cardona v. Kizziah Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION at PIKEVILLE JOSE CRISTOBAL CARDONA, Petitioner, Civil No. 7: 17-91-KKC V. GREGORY KIZZIAH, Warden, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Respondent. *** *** *** *** Federal inmate Jose Cristobal Cardona has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge the Bureau of Prisons’ decision not to seek compassionate release on his behalf pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Cardona argued to the BOP that he is entitled to compassionate release on the ground that he is being held in “involuntary servitude” because he was forced to represent himself at trial, resulting in his conviction. [R. 1] The Court conducts an initial review of habeas corpus petitions. 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Alexander v. Northern Bureau of Prisons, 419 F. App’x 544, 545 (6th Cir. 2011). Cardona’s “involuntary servitude” argument is nothing more than a challenge to his conviction itself, a claim that has been repeatedly rejected in prior collateral review proceedings before this and other courts. See Cardona v. Sepanek, No. 7: 16-CV-83-KKC (E.D. Ky. June 21, 2016), aff’d, No. 16-6524 (6th Cir. Mar. 21, 2017). His request for compassionate release was therefore patently frivolous, and the BOP did not act improperly in rejecting it. In addition, the BOP’s decision is not reviewable by this Court, Crowe v. United States, 430 F. App’x 484 (6th Cir. 2011), and only the sentencing court - not this court - may grant relief under Section 3582, Caudill v. Hickey, No. 12-CV-7-KKC, 2012 WL 2524234 (E.D. Ky. June 29, 2012). Dockets.Justia.com Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Cardona’s petition [R. 1] is DENIED. 2. The Court will enter an appropriate judgment. 3. This matter is STRICKEN from the active docket. Dated June 5, 2017. 2