OPINION *
Eldon Washington is serving a sentence, imposed by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, at USP Canaan in Waymart, Pennsylvania. According to the Government, Washingtons projected release date is March 31, 2022.
Washington filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release to home confinement or from custody altogether. Washington asserted in his petition that: federal prisons present a “uniquely hospitable environment for COVID-19 to spread”; his particular medical profile makes him susceptible to severe consequences from a SARS-CoV-2 infection; and his conditions of confinement violate the Eighth Amendment.
After denying Washingtons motion for appointment of counsel and eliciting the Governments response to Washingtons habeas petition, the District Court denied the petition on the merits. The District Court determined that there was no basis to disturb the decision of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) rejecting Washingtons plea for home confinement. The District Court reasoned that discretion to make home confinement decisions is vested solely in the BOP and, to the extent that the BOPs exercise of discretion is subject to judicial review, the exercise was reasonable in Washingtons case. Additionally, the District Court noted that, insofar as a request for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) was embedded in Washingtons habeas petition, such a request needed to be directed to the sentencing court (in Kentucky).
The District Court next addressed Washingtons Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim. The District Court assumed, arguendo, that such a claim is cognizable in habeas proceedings under § 2241. And it determined that the claim lacks merit because “even when considering Petitioners underlying health conditions, he has neither identified a sufficiently serious deprivation that rises to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation nor has he established that officials at USP Canaan have acted with deliberate indifference to his health or safety.”
Washington now appeals the District Courts judgment. He does not need a certificate of appealability to proceed. See Reese v. Warden Phila. FDC, 904 F.3d 244, 246 (3d Cir. 2018). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review is plenary. See Reese, 904 F.3d at 246.
We conclude that Washingtons petition was properly denied, for substantially the reasons given in the District Courts memorandum opinion. In particular, we agree with the District Court that whether to transfer an inmate to home confinement is a decision within the exclusive discretion of the BOP. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2); see also CARES Act, Pub. L. 116-136, Mar. 27, 2020, 134 Stat. 281, Div. B, Title II, § 12003(b)(2) (“[T]he Director of the [BOP] may lengthen the maximum amount of time for which the Director is authorized to place a prisoner in home confinement under [§ 3624(c)(2)].”) (emphasis added). We also agree with the District Court that, assuming the cognizability of Washingtons Eighth Amendment claim, cf. Hope v. Warden York Cty. Prison, 972 F.3d 310, 324–25 (3d Cir. 2020) (“Given the extraordinary circumstances that existed in March 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, we are satisfied that their § 2241 claim seeking only release on the basis that unconstitutional confinement conditions require it is not improper.”) (emphasis added), the claim lacks merit because Washingtons allegations fail to demonstrate deliberate indifference by USP Canaan (or the BOP more generally), see Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); see also Hope, 972 F.3d at 330 (“Although the District Court criticized the Government for the lack of ‘effective containment measures,’ and for not doing ‘nearly enough’ to combat COVID-19, those critiques are not tantamount to establishing the Governments deliberate indifference.”) (internal citation omitted); Wilson v. Williams, 961 F.3d 829, 841 (6th Cir. 2020) (holding that the BOPs early efforts to curtail the spread of COVID-19 demonstrated “the opposite of a disregard of a serious health risk”).
Because this appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4 (2011); 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6 (2018).
PER CURIAM