UNITED STATES v. HIGGINS (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-01No. No. 20-30146

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of Higgins's motion for compassionate release, finding no abuse of discretion in the lower court's determination that he had not demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons for early release.

Joshua Higgins, representing himself, appealed the district court's decision to deny his request for compassionate release from his sentence under federal law. Higgins argued that his underlying medical conditions placed him at heightened risk if he contracted COVID-19, and he pointed to the number of COVID-19 cases at his correctional facility as reasons warranting his early release. The appellate court rejected these arguments, finding that the district court properly weighed his medical status, facility conditions, and family circumstances without abusing its discretion.

The court first resolved a preliminary jurisdictional dispute by holding that the district court properly accepted Higgins's motion as a compassionate release petition and therefore had appropriate venue to consider it. On the substantive question, the court concluded that Higgins failed to establish the "extraordinary and compelling reasons" required by law to grant such relief, and accordingly upheld the district court's denial.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the district court had proper venue to consider a pro se compassionate release motion
Whether COVID-19 risk and medical vulnerability constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release
Whether conditions at a detention facility related to disease transmission support early release

Procedural posture

Higgins appealed pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Joshua Nicholas Higgins appeals pro se from the district courts order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

As an initial matter, the government contends that venue in the district court was improper. We disagree. In light of Higginss pro se status and the arguments raised in his motion, the district court permissibly construed his motion as a request for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1) and, as such, his motion was properly filed in the Eastern District of Washington. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582. Turning to the merits, Higgins contends that he is entitled to compassionate release because his medical conditions subject him to greater risk of illness should he contract COVID-19 and because of the high number of COVID-19 infections at his facility.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. See United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021). The district court considered Higginss medical conditions, the conditions at his facility, and his family circumstances,

and reasonably concluded that Higgins had not demonstrated “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

. Higginss filing at Docket Entry No. 5 is treated as a motion to supplement his opening brief. So treated, the motion is granted. The filing has been considered.

. In the district court, Higgins cited his parents’ serious health issues as an independent reason to grant compassionate release. The government contends that Higgins waived this argument by failing to renew it on appeal. We need not resolve this question because our conclusion is the same whether or not we consider the circumstances of Higginss parents.