Quintana v. Wirthlin et al, No. 2:2020cv00156 - Document 10 (D. Utah 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION & DISMISSAL ORDER denying 9 Motion for Compassionate Release. Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's order to file an IPFF and consent, and has failed to prosecute this case. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. This action is closed. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 09/14/2020. (kpf)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Quintana v. Wirthlin et al Doc. 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CHASTITY QUINTANA, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION & DISMISSAL ORDER v. RODNEY WIRTHLIN et al., Defendants. Case No. 2:20-CV-156-TS District Judge Ted Stewart In an Order dated June 12, 2020, the Court required Plaintiff to within thirty days pay an initial partial filing fee (IPFF) of $25.80 and submit a consent to have the remaining fee collected in increments from Plaintiff’s inmate account. (ECF No. 8.) To date, Plaintiff has not complied, nor has Plaintiff responded to the Order. Plaintiff instead filed what appears to be a motion for compassionate release. The Court last heard from Plaintiff nearly three months ago. The federal compassionate-release statute, allows a district court to "reduce [a] term of imprisonment" of prisoners in federal custody "upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or upon motion of the defendant 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 or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant's facility, whichever is earlier." 18 USCS § 3582(c)(1)(A) (2020). Thus, a court may order an inmate to be released if the court concludes that "extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction; . . . and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission." Id. However, Plaintiff is in state custody; the Dockets.Justia.com Court "does not have the authority to order a compassionate release from state custody, which is a matter of state law." Puerner v. Smith, No. 09-C-1051, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120169, at *3 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 3, 2009); see also Teague v. Colo., No. 20-CV-1425-PAB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109733, at *14 (D. Colo. June 22, 2020); Williams v. Keiser, No. 17-CV-1040, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74397, at *3-4 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2020) (denying motion for compassionate release when inmate in state custody); United States v. Tillisy, No. CR13-310 RSL-MLP, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68086, at *3-4 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 17, 2020) (same). Plaintiff’s motion for compassionate release is therefore denied. IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff’s motion for compassionate relief is DENIED. (ECF No. 9.) (2) Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's order to file an IPFF and consent, and has failed to prosecute this case, see DUCivR 41-2, Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. (3) This action is CLOSED. Dated September 14, 2020 BY THE COURT: JUDGE TED STEWART United States District Court 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
