IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA VENTURA GARCIA, : Civil No. 1:22-CV-00406 : Petitioner, : : v. : : WARDEN JAMISON, : : Respondent. : Judge Jennifer P. Wilson MEMORANDUM Before the court is Petitioner Ventura Garcia’s (“Petitioner”) petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. Petitioner is seeking compassionate release from the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) under the First Step Act (“FSA”) based on his poor health and the Covid-19 pandemic. (Doc. 1.) For the reasons set forth below, the court will dismiss the habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioner is serving a 360-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. See U.S.A. v. Branch, et al., No. 1:01-cr-00052-MR-WCM-7 (W.D. N.C.). He is currently housed at the Federal Correctional Institute Allenwood (“FCI-Allenwood”) in White Deer, Pennsylvania. Petitioner initiated this action by filing a § 2241 petition in Mach of 2022. (Doc. 1.) The court entered a show cause order on April 11, 2022. (Doc. 5.) Respondent filed a response on May 20, 2022. (Doc. 9.) Petitioner did not file a traverse. The petition is now ripe to be addressed by the court.

DISCUSSION Petitioner asks the court to reduce his sentence to time served pursuant to

(c)(1)(A), as modified by the First Step Act of 2018, due to his concerns of failing health and continued exposure to COVID-19. “The First Step

Act empowers criminal defendants to request compassionate release for ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons.’” United States v. Raia,

, 595 (3d Cir. 2020) (quoting

(c)(1)(A)). Both the Petitioner and the

BOP can move for compassionate release under Section 3582(c)(1)(A). But before doing so, a Petitioner must fully exhaust all available administrative remedies offered by the BOP. See Raia, 954 F.3d at 597 (failure to satisfy Section 3582(c)(1)(A)’s exhaustion requirements “presents a glaring roadblock foreclosing

compassionate release”). Additionally, and of most importance in this case, is that motions for compassionate release must “be addressed to the sentencing court.” Id. at 596. Here, Petitioner was sentenced in the Western District of North

Carolina and not in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. As such, this court does not have jurisdiction to grant the relief Petitioner requests. While Petitioner does not directly raise an Eighth Amendment claim, he does imply that, because of Covid-19, the conditions of his confinement are unconstitutional. (Doc. 1, pp. 6–7.)1 A habeas petition may be brought by a prisoner who seeks to challenge either the fact or duration of his confinement.

Preiser v. Rodriguez,

(1973); Leamer v. Fauver,

(3d Cir. 2002). Conditions of confinement are challenged through

claim:

[W]henever the challenge ultimately attacks the ‘core of habeas’–the validity of the continued conviction or the fact or length of a sentence –a challenge, however denominated and regardless of the relief sought, must be brought by way of habeas corpus petition. Conversely, when the challenge is to a condition of confinement such that a finding in plaintiff’s favor would not alter his sentence or undo his conviction, an action under § 1983 is appropriate.

Leamer,

. As such, Petitioner fails to state a cognizable habeas claim based on the BOP’s alleged violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

will be dismissed without prejudice as the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. An appropriate order follows. s/Jennifer P. Wilson JENNIFER P. WILSON United States District Judge Middle District of Pennsylvania Dated: July 31, 2023

1 For ease of reference, the court utilizes the page numbers from the CM/ECF header.