noting that district court likely has jurisdiction over a court-martialed petitioner’s § 3582 motion because there is no sentencing court for the petitioner to file the motion
How later courts described this case
- noting that district court likely has jurisdiction over a court-martialed petitioner’s § 3582 motion because there is no sentencing court for the petitioner to file the motion
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
SALEEL Z. QAASIM,
Petitioner,
v. Case No: 5:23-cv-175-TPB-PRL
WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN –
LOW,
Respondent.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Petitioner, a 37-year-old federal inmate incarcerated at the Coleman
Federal Correctional Complex, initiated this civil action by filing a Motion for
Sentence Reduction Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (Doc. 1).
In 2012, “a panel composed of officer and enlisted members sitting as a
general court-martial convicted [Petitioner] . . . of unpremeditated murder in
violation of Article 118, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 918
(2006).” United States v. Qaasim, No. ARMY20120312, 2015 WL 993362, at
*1 (C.A.A.F. Feb. 24, 2015). “The convening authority approved the adjudged
sentence of a dishonorable discharge and confinement for life with eligibility
for parole.” Id. In 2015, the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals
affirmed Petitioner’s conviction and sentence. Id. at *3.
In the Motion, Petitioner raises several claims for relief. He requests
compassionate release or a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 due to
“extraordinary and compelling reasons” (Doc. 1 at 3). He asserts that he
suffers from mental health issues and long COVID and seeks to be the
primary caretaker of his ill mother (id. at 11). He also appears to challenge
the conditions of his confinement, arguing prison officials have limited his
access to “productive activities” and designated him in “a high custody level
under dangerous and harsh conditions” when he does not qualify for that
housing classification (id. at 12-13). Petitioner also challenges his judgment
and sentence, asserting his conviction violates Apprendi,1 his trial counsel
was ineffective, recent changes in the law would have affected the outcome of
his case, and his life sentence “is an extreme sentence disparity” compared to
others convicted of second degree murder (id. at 13-14).
Although Petitioner titles his pleading as a motion for compassionate
release, not all of his allegations are cognizable under 18 U.S.C. § 3582.
Notably, if Petitioner seeks compassionate release based on “extraordinary
and compelling reasons,” he should file a motion “consistent with applicable
policy statements issued by the [United States] Sentencing Commission.” 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); see also In re Kawai, No. 2022-02, 2022 WL 1668374,
1 Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
at *2 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. May 25, 2022) (noting that district court likely has
jurisdiction over a court-martialed petitioner’s § 3582 motion because there is
no sentencing court for the petitioner to file the motion). The Sentencing
Commission promulgated its policy statement in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. The
policy statement defines four circumstances that qualify as “extraordinary
and compelling reasons” for a sentence reduction – (A) a serious medical
condition; (B) advanced age and deteriorating health; (C) family
circumstances; and (D) an extraordinary and compelling reason other than,
or in combination with, (A)-(C), as determined by the Director of the BOP. §
1B1.13, cmt. 1.
Petitioner’s current claims fall outside those listed circumstances.
Instead, if Petitioner seeks to challenge the conditions of his confinement, he
should pursue those claims in a civil rights complaint under Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
And if Petitioner seeks to collaterally challenge his court-martialed conviction
and sentence, he should file a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Brown v.
Sec’y of the U.S. Army, 859 F. App’x 901, 901 (11th Cir. 2021) (“§ 2255 may be
inadequate or ineffective for military prisoners due to the evanescent nature
of court martial proceedings: the sentencing court literally dissolves after
sentencing and is no longer available to test a prisoner’s collateral attack . . . .
Because [the petitioner] challenges his conviction by a long-since dissolved
court-martial, his claim is cognizable, if it is at all, under § 2241.”). Thus, this
case is due to be dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner pursuing his
claims through the appropriate avenues.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, terminate any
pending motions, and close this case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this 29th day of March, 2023.
wn A ws
ff / | UY fe, / |
LA [+ | O —
TOMBARBER □□
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Jax-7
C: Saleel Z. Qaasim, #17617-035
Page 4 of 4