Filed: Nov. 07, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 07, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY TRANSFER TO THE WILLIAM DICKERSON DETENTION FACILITY SEAN F. COX , District Judge . After a jury convicted Defendant Tyrone Vannoy of being a felon in possession of a firearm, the Court sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of 180 months. Vannoy was committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons and is currently serving his sentence at FCI Milan, a federal prison roughly one hour away from Detroit, Michigan. Vannoy now requests that he be
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY TRANSFER TO THE WILLIAM DICKERSON DETENTION FACILITY SEAN F. COX , District Judge . After a jury convicted Defendant Tyrone Vannoy of being a felon in possession of a firearm, the Court sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of 180 months. Vannoy was committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons and is currently serving his sentence at FCI Milan, a federal prison roughly one hour away from Detroit, Michigan. Vannoy now requests that he be ..
More
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY TRANSFER TO THE WILLIAM DICKERSON DETENTION FACILITY
SEAN F. COX, District Judge.
After a jury convicted Defendant Tyrone Vannoy of being a felon in possession of a firearm, the Court sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of 180 months. Vannoy was committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons and is currently serving his sentence at FCI Milan, a federal prison roughly one hour away from Detroit, Michigan. Vannoy now requests that he be temporarily transferred to the Willam Dickerson Detention Facility, a county jail just outside Detroit, so that he can more easily participate in a Wayne County Circuit Court proceeding that seeks to terminate his parental rights over two of his children.
After review of Vannoy's motion, the Court concludes that it lacks authority to order the requested temporary transfer. "The Bureau of Prisons has broad discretion in administering a prisoner's sentence, and decisions to place a convicted defendant within a particular program or at a particular facility are decisions within the sole discretion of the Bureau of Prisons." Klawonn v. United States, 11 Fed. App'x 559, 561 (6th Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted). "Consequently, the sentencing court has no authority to order that a convicted defendant be confined in a particular facility. . ." Id.
Moreover, the Court is not persuaded that such a transfer is necessary or would effectuate its intended goal. If Vannoy's presence was required at the parental rights trial, the state court would have (presumably) issued the appropriate writ to compel his appearance. Instead, the state court arranged to have him appear by phone, which indicates that it has already determined that he need not be physically present. And, even if Vannoy was transferred to Dickerson, there is still the question of how he would be transported to, and secured during, the state court proceedings. The Court doubts that it could order the Wayne County Sheriff's Department to perform those duties—or even house Vannoy in the first place—at its own expense.1
In sum, the Court cannot order the Bureau of Prisons to transfer a federal prisoner to a county jail so that he might be able to more conveniently attend a state court proceeding, especially when the state court appears to have already concluded that Vannoy's physical presence is unnecessary. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Vannoy's motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
