USA v. COLLAMORE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
WAYNE COLLAMORE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Docket no. 2:10-cr-00158-GZS
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)
(COMPASSIONATE RELEASE)
Before the Court is Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Compassionate Release (ECF No.
59), as well as related Motions seeking appointment of counsel (ECF No. 60) and leave to proceed
in forma pauperis (ECF No. 61). The Court last considered Defendant for compassionate release
on December 15, 2020. 	Nothing in Defendant’s current filing provides a basis for the Court to
reconsider this earlier ruling. Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Renewed Motion for the
reasons stated in the Court’s December 15, 2020 Order (ECF No. 58). Given this ruling, the Court
DENIES the related Motions (ECF Nos. 60 & 61) as MOOT.
The Court additionally notes that Defendant’s recent filings might be construed as seeking
relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (See ECF No. 59, PageID # 306; ECF No. 59-5, PageID #s
328-29.) Specifically, a liberal reading of Collamore’s recent pro se filings suggests that he has
failed to receive mental health treatment, including various exams and benefits from the Veteran’s
Administration “due to lack of cooperation from FCI Coleman.” (See 1/15/21 Ltr. from Duffey
(ECF No. 59-3), PageID # 323.) This Court is not the proper venue for such a petition challenging
conditions and services at FCI Coleman. See, e.g., Estupinan-Gonzalez v. United States, No. 17-
15586-J, 2018 WL 6919305, at *4 (11th Cir. Nov. 28, 2018) (“A § 2241 petition ‘may only be
Case 2:10-cr-00158-NT Document 62 Filed 02/03/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
brought in the court having jurisdiction over the petitioner or his place of incarceration.’”) (quoting
Hajduk v. United States, 764 F.2d 795, 796 (11th Cir. 1985)); see also Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542
U.S. 426, 443 (2004) (“The plain language of the habeas statute thus confirms the general rule that
for core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one
district: the district of confinement.”) Therefore, to the extent the pending filings could be read as
motion for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the Court DENIES this request for relief without
prejudice to refiling in the proper forum.1
For the reasons just stated, the Court DENIES all of Defendant’s pending Motions (ECF
Nos. 59, 60 & 61).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ George Z. Singal
United States District Judge
Dated this 3rd day of February, 2021.
1 To the extent that this denial could be deemed subject to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the Court concludes that no certificate
of appealability should issue as to this ruling because there is no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
Case 2:10-cr-00158-NT Document 62 Filed 02/03/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>