FRANK NTI REBECCA MANES DUSTIN SHEARER Effects of Food Stigma & Labeling.
THE BASICS OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS LITIGATION IN THE …€¦ · 2020-03-25 · Susan Russell...
Transcript of THE BASICS OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS LITIGATION IN THE …€¦ · 2020-03-25 · Susan Russell...
1
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER
LISA C. HAY Federal Public Defender
STEPHEN R. SADY
Chief Deputy Defender
Gerald M. Needham
Thomas J. Hester
Ruben L. Iñiguez
Anthony D. Bornstein
Susan Russell
Francesca Freccero
C. Renée Manes
Nell Brown
Kristina Hellman
Fidel Cassino-DuCloux
Alison M. Clark
Brian Butler +
Thomas E. Price
Michelle Sweet
Mark Ahlemeyer
Susan Wilk
DISTRICT OF OREGON
101 SW Main Street, Suite 1700
Portland, OR 97204
503-326-2123 / Fax: 503-326-5524
Branch Offices:
859 Willamette Street 15 Newtown Street
Suite 200 Medford, OR 97501
Eugene, OR 97401 541-776-3630
541-465-6937 Fax: 541-776-3624
Fax: 541-465-6975
Oliver W. Loewy
Elizabeth G. Daily
Conor Huseby
Robert Hamilton
Bryan Francesconi
Ryan Costello
Irina Hughes▲
Kurt D. Hermansen▲
Devin Huseby +
Jessica Snyder
Cassidy R. Rice
In Memoriam
Nancy Bergeson
1951 – 2009
▲ Eugene Office
+ Medford Office
Research /Writing Attorney
THE BASICS OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS LITIGATION
IN THE TIME OF CORONA
By Stephen R. Sady
March 25, 2020
For both healthy clients and those especially vulnerable to coronavirus, the
difference between prison and community corrections during the national
emergency can be significant. Our clients can be transferred to less risky
environments of home confinement and reentry centers where social distancing can
be better practiced. At the same time, prison populations can be reduced to lessen
overcrowding and improve staff-to-inmate ratios. The constellation of statutes and
rules around the transfer to community correction for up to one year prior to the
projected release date under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) provide bases for legal action on
behalf of clients. We have ideas for specific actions to help clients and model
pleadings attached for potential litigation, but first some context and history.
Scope Of The Problem: The potential beneficiaries of advocacy for more
time in community corrections are clients who are eligible for community
corrections but are scheduled to receive less than the maximum available statutory
time. Under § 3624(c), eligible clients can receive up to one year of community
corrections in reentry centers, with the lesser of six months or ten percent of the
sentence in home confinement.
2
In 2019, the Bureau of Prisons reported 45,075 releases to the community,
excluding transfers to state detainers and immigration. The BOP has a long history
of underutilizing community corrections; the average time has been around four
months, or only a third of the available year. Between 17 and 19 months before the
projected release date, the unit manager, counselor, and case manager are supposed
to have a program review meeting to determine whether and how long community
corrections is appropriate. So the community corrections times for most of our
current clients has already been set with no consideration of the risks and needs
based on the coronavirus national emergency.
Recommendations For Transfer To Community Corrections: Short of
litigation, we can hope the BOP re-calibrates transfers to community corrections to
accelerate the times for transfer to address the national emergency. Legislative
advocates for federal defenders have written the attached letter to the Attorney
General and the BOP Director making that recommendation. For individual clients,
we can also take persuasive action. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(4), sentencing judges
can make designation recommendations to the BOP at any time. See United States
v. Ceballos, 671 F.3d 852, 856 n.2 (9th Cir. 2011). If a client calls in asking for help,
or if we are aware of a client near the end of the sentence, we can write the sentencing
judge or submit a motion requesting a recommendation of maximum time in
community corrections based on the national emergency and any pertinent
individualized factors. The recommendation for maximum community corrections
and maximum home confinement is especially important because the Department of
Justice has sponsored legislation that permits the Director to lengthen the time of
permitted home confinement.
The Myth Of BOP Invulnerability: Advocates may be daunted by the
BOP’s claims of unlimited discretion and judicial super-deference to the agency.
Despite the BOP’s frequent claims of unreviewable discretion, there is a long history
of judges granting relief to prisoners based on claims in actions under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 that BOP administrative action violates rules, statutes, and constitutional
rights, as set out in the sample memorandum. Two lines of litigation illustrate the
point in the community corrections context. In most Circuits, the courts held that
BOP rules that foreclosed or limited community corrections violated the underlying
statutes. Rodriguez v. Smith, 541 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing cases). We also
litigated a class action asserting that informal policy limitations of community
corrections to not more than six months violated the Second Chance Act. Sacora v.
Thomas, 628 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court approved the informal
3
rule, the Sacora case is relevant because the district court agreed that the regulation
requiring promulgation of a rule guiding community corrections decisions was
invalid (the regulation just repeated the statute’s language). Although the Second
Chance Act required that a regulation be promulgated within 90 days, there is still
no meaningful and properly promulgated regulation in place a decade later.
Exhaustion Of Administrative Remedies: Section 2241 includes no
exhaustion requirement, so what remains is a judicially created non-jurisdictional
requirement that can be excused based on futility and the danger of irreparable harm
from delay. That said, we recommend filing for all available administrative
remedies. See Program Statement 1330.18, Administrative Remedy Program (Jan.
6, 2014). The reasoning is simple: the BOP might grant relief; if it doesn’t, the
explanation is in writing; and nothing stops us from litigating and exhausting at the
same time where our client is facing imminent irreparable harm. Not insignificantly,
once the claim enters the administrative system, the attorney for the BOP is in a
position to settle the case if so inclined based on the individual’s situation. So any
client who is seeking accelerated community corrections should start make
administrative requests right away based on the coronavirus national emergency and
any applicable individualized factors. And the BOP received notice of the
generalized request for reconsideration of community corrections time in the federal
defender legislative committee letter that is attached.
Filing The Section 2241 Petition And Supporting Memorandum: Not all
clients will benefit from community corrections litigation. In some districts, reentry
centers may be as risky as prison; for some clients, the lack of an effective release
plan may militate against transfer to the streets without medical care. For clients
determined to benefit from litigation, a petition can be filed with a supporting
memorandum requesting expedited consideration and relief. Attached to this article
are a model petition and supporting memorandum based on the BOP’s failure to
follow a number of applicable statutes and rules that can be customized and adapted
as appropriate.
Your client will be able to provide the factual details: has there been an
individualized program review based on the new circumstances of the national
emergency? Did the prior limited time in community corrections inadequately
account for vulnerabilities to coronavirus? Was adequate consideration given to low
risk factors or completion of the residential component of the drug and alcohol
program created under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)? Defenders need to communicate with
clients to determine any potential argument and to be creative in matching the facts
4
to legal norms that are being violated. Remember that an unwise discretionary
decision does not constitute effective grounds for relief under § 2241; there must be
an effective hook to violations of the laws and Constitution of the United States. An
addendum following the model brief sets out potential procedural due process and
Eighth Amendment claims that can be included.
Where to file is a bit complex, not because the law is bad but because of poorly
written opinions. The general rule is that § 2241 petitions are filed in the district of
custody. So for offices receiving calls for help from a local federal prison, file the
§ 2241 petition locally. For our clients in far-flung prisons, this can be a
representation problem. As in compassionate release cases, working with the office
of custody provides the easiest solution. But when representation is only available
in the district of conviction, we don’t need to be shy about filing a motion for our
requested relief, explaining that the place of filing is a matter of venue, not of subject
matter jurisdiction, as set out in the model memorandum. We would argue that the
balance of interests strongly militate in favor of the district of the sentencing judge
to decide whether the BOP is administering the defendant’s sentence in violation of
federal law.
Requested Relief: The model pleading is requesting a temporary restraining
order, conditional release pending litigation, and issuance of the writ as “law and
justice require” under 28 U.S.C. § 2243. We hope to give sentencing judges as many
alternative routes as possible to protecting our clients from the ongoing risks in
prison and reducing prison populations for the benefit of all. We can hope that
required reassessment of community corrections in light of the national emergency
will result in accelerated releases and, at least, greater sensitivity and urgency to
increasing use of community corrections. Remember that habeas corpus is a flexible
remedy that adjusts according to circumstances. The present emergency warrants
creative solutions implemented without delay.
Conclusion: Smart and creative defenders will be figuring out how to best
serve our clients by maximizing time in community corrections. These thoughts and
model pleadings provide a starting point. Please be generous in sharing any
successes or lessons learned that will help other advocates.
Page 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[Attorney name], OSB #_________
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Email: [email protected]
101 SW Main Street, Suite 1700
Portland, OR 97204
Tel: (503) 326-2123
Fax: (503) 326-5524
Attorney for Petitioner
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF [XX]
[Client name],
Petitioner,
v.
[Respondent name],
Respondent.
Case No. ________
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS
Preliminary Statement
The Bureau of Prisons’ adverse action during the novel coronavirus emergency violates
governing statutes, the BOP’s own rules implementing those statutes, and the Constitution.
Judicial oversight of the BOP’s custodial decisions must now take into account the national
emergency of the Covid-19 pandemic. The petitioner’s continued incarceration puts
him/her/them at greater risk of contracting the disease, as social distancing and other protective
Page 2 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
measures that public health and government officials advocate and order as essential to restraining
the spread of the novel coronavirus are unachievable in the petitioner’s current prison facility. The
petitioner’s release to the less risky environment of home confinement or a reentry center could
not only save the petitioner from increased risk of contracting the novel coronavirus, but also
reduce the prison’s overcrowding and improve staff-to-inmate ratios. These are essential steps
toward stemming the novel coronavirus pandemic. The petitioner is eligible for up to one year of
community corrections in a reentry center, with the lesser of six months or ten percent of the
sentence in home confinement, yet the BOP scheduled [client] to receive less than this amount of
time in community corrections. The BOP’s decision violates applicable statutory law, BOP rules
regarding those statutes, and the Constitution.
Parties
1.1 Petitioner [client name] is currently a federal prisoner in the custody of the Bureau of
Prisons at [location].
1.2 Respondent [name] is the [Respondent’s official position], which is within the District of
[xx and the jurisdiction of this Court], and is named in his/her official capacity.
Jurisdiction
2.1 This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because the
Petitioner’s term in federal custody is being executed in a manner that violates the
Constitution and laws of the United States.
2.2 This Court also has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the constitutional writ of habeas
corpus and the Court’s ancillary jurisdiction over management of its proceedings,
vindication of its authority, and effectuation of its decrees. Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S.
723, 729 (2008); Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 379-80
Page 3 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
(1994). [If filing out-of-district, include the following text:] The rules that a habeas
corpus action be brought against the immediate custodian and filed in the district court
where the custodian is located are not a limitation on this Court’s subject-matter
jurisdiction. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 451 (2004) (Kennedy, J., concurring). The
place of filing is, rather, a matter of venue and this Court may thus hear this Petition on the
merits. See id. (citing cases adjudicated on the merits). The balance of interests strongly
weighs toward this Court as the sentencing judge deciding whether the BOP is
administering the petitioner’s sentence in violation of federal law and the Constitution.
2.3 The petitioner additionally invokes the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331 because the action arises out of the Constitution and laws of the United States and
seeks corrective action by officers and employees of the United States in their official
capacity.
2.4 Petitioner additionally invokes the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1343(a)(4) because Petitioner seeks to redress deprivation of rights guaranteed by both
the Constitution and federal statutes.
Statement of Facts
3.1 On [date], Petitioner received a sentence to a term of imprisonment of [xx] months upon
conviction for [crime] in United States v. [Client], [case number]. Petitioner currently is
incarcerated in [location] with a projected release date of [date].
3.2 Client-specific facts and information about any attempts to pursue administrative
remedies.
3.3 On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization classified the new strain of coronavirus
that causes Covid-19 as a pandemic. Two days later, on March 13, 2020, the White House
Page 4 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
declared a national emergency under Section 319 of the Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. § 247(d)). The White House also has issued guidance recommending that
gatherings of ten persons or more be cancelled or postponed.
3.4 Government and public health officials are ordering and advocating for social distancing
as an essential measure to curtail the spread of the Covid-19 disease. Petitioner’s current
incarceration makes him/her/them especially susceptible to the novel coronavirus, as
social distancing is nearly impossible in Petitioner’s current prison facility. Other
circumstances of Petitioner’s current incarceration—including restricted access to soap,
bans on hand sanitizer, inadequate ventilation, and limited medical care—cause the
petitioner to be in particular danger due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Statement of the Law
4.1 The BOP shall designate the place of imprisonment considering “the history and
characteristics of the prisoner.” 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b).
4.2 The BOP must ensure that a prisoner spend the final portion of the prisoner’s sentence, up
to one year, in a community correctional facility, and “shall, to the extent practicable, place
prisoners with lower risk levels and lower needs on home confinement for the maximum
amount of time permitted under this paragraph,” which is “the shorter of 10 percent of the
term of imprisonment of that prisoner or 6 months.” 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1) and (2).
4.3 Regulations “shall issue” that “shall ensure” that placement in community corrections
“determined on an individual basis,” and be “of sufficient duration to provide the greatest
likelihood of successful reintegration into the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(6)(B)-
(C).
Page 5 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
4.4 In 2008, the BOP published an interim rule that stated, in part: “Inmates will be considered
for pre-release community confinement in a manner consistent with 18 U.S.C. section
3621(b), determined on an individual basis, and of sufficient duration to provide the
greatest likelihood of successful reintegration into the community . . . .” 73 Fed. Reg.
62440, 62443 (Oct. 21, 2008). Oregon District Court Judge Malcom F. Marsh held this
rule invalid. Sacora v. Thomas, 628 F.3d 1059, 1065 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he district court
granted the petition with respect to the BOP’s formal regulations, 28 C.F.R. §§ 570.20–
.22, finding that the BOP’s failure to use notice-and-comment provisions in promulgating
those regulations violated the APA, and enjoined the BOP from considering inmates for
placement in RRCs pursuant to those regulations.”). In 2011, the BOP published a
proposed rule with the same language used in the 2008 interim rule. 76 Fed. Reg. 58197,
58199 (Sept. 20, 2011).
4.5 [If applicable:] Individuals imprisoned by the BOP must be notified of program reviews
and are expected to participate. 28 C.F.R. § 524.11(b).
4.6 The BOP must provide procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment in determining
the statutory individualized time in community corrections, especially considering the
coronavirus pandemic, and must not violate the Eighth Amendment’s minimum
requirements of health and safety for prisoners.
Requested Relief
Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court grant the writ of habeas corpus as “law and
justice require” under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and:
1) issue a temporary restraining order for immediate transfer to community corrections or
reconsideration of the time in community corrections without delay;
Page 6 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
2) or, in the alternative, authorize discovery and set this matter for an expedited hearing on
the merits while conditionally releasing the petitioner during litigation.
Respectfully submitted this _____ day of _________, 2020.
/s/ [attorney name]
[attorney name]
Attorney for Petitioner
Page 1 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[Attorney name], OSB #_________
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Email: [email protected]
101 SW Main Street, Suite 1700
Portland, OR 97204
Tel: (503) 326-2123
Fax: (503) 326-5524
Attorney for Petitioner
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
[Client name],
Petitioner,
v.
[Respondent name],
Respondent.
Case No. ________
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS
Introduction
The petitioner, through counsel, moves the Court for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). The Bureau of Prisons’ adverse action during the coronavirus
emergency violates governing statutes, the BOP’s rules implementing those statutes, and the
Constitution. The courts have repeatedly recognized the essential judicial role in overseeing
custodial decisions that make the difference between prison and placement in the community,
where family and religious connections, employment, and other forms of support are available.
Page 2 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
That essential judicial oversight must now also take into account changed circumstances caused
by the Covid-19 pandemic. As of March 20, 2020, the coronavirus has infected at least 265,495
people worldwide, leading to at least 11,147 deaths.1 In the United States, at least 16,018 people
have been infected, and as of March 20, 2020, at least 167 deaths in the United States were
attributable to Covid-19. The White House has declared a national emergency under Section 319
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. § 247(d)).2 Also on March 16, 2020, the White House
issued guidance recommending that, for the next eight weeks, gatherings of ten persons or more
be canceled or postponed.3 [Client’s] continued incarceration makes him/her/them especially
susceptible to Covid-19, as the social distancing that public health officials advocate as essential
to curtailing the pandemic are simply impossible in [client’s] current prison facility. [Client’s]
susceptibility to Covid-19 must factor into the individualized consideration for placement in a
community correctional facility or home confinement. Each day that [client] remains in prison,
he/she/they face irreparable harm from the heightened risk of exposure to Covid-19.
Under mandatory statues and implementing rules, Congress required [client’s] custodians
to individualize his assessment based on current information, which included factors calling for
the maximum period of community corrections (one year) and the maximum period of home
confinement (six months). The Court should grant a temporary restraining order requiring transfer
1 Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns
Hopkins University, at
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 (updating regularly).
2 The White House, Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease
(COVID-19) Outbreak (March 13, 2020). https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-declaring-
national-emergency-concerning-novel-coronavirus-disease-covid-19-outbreak/.
3 Sheri Fink, White House Takes New Line After Dire Report on Death Toll, THE NEW YORK TIMES (March 17,
2020) https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/us/coronavirus-fatality-rate-white-
house.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage.
Page 3 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
to community corrections or reconsideration of a greater amount of community corrections, which
should include consideration of factors calling for the maximum of both types of community
corrections. In the alternative, the Court should authorize discovery and set this matter for an
expedited hearing on the merits while conditionally releasing [client] during litigation, or grant
the writ “as law and justice requires” under 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
A. Under Controlling Legal Authority, [Client’s] Ongoing Administrative Efforts At
Relief Do Not Require Dismissal Because He/She/They Faces Irreparable Harm From
Delay, The Administrative Process Does Not Appear To Be Empowered To Make The
Relevant Legal Determinations, And The BOP Response Indicates Exhaustion Would
Be Futile.
[Description of how the petitioner has provided the BOP with applications for
administrative remedies, to no avail.] In any event, under controlling authority, any failure to
exhaust administrative remedies should be excused.
[Description of the petitioner’s attempts to remedy his/her/their situation without
success, if applicable, and statement of how the BOP’s responses have demonstrated that the
BOP either cannot or will not remedy the situation itself despite having been notified of the
problem, including the federal defender’s Legislative Committee letter of March 20, 2020,
asking for individualized reconsideration for all inmates within a year of their projected
release date.]
In McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140 (1992), the Supreme Court found exhaustion
excused where 1) the prisoner faces irreparable harm from delay incident to pursuing
administrative remedies; or 2) there is some doubt whether the agency was empowered to render
relief; or 3) the agency has indicated predetermination of the issue, rendering exhaustion futile.
Id. at 146-49. Exhaustion is not a jurisdictional requirement under section 2241. United States v.
Woods, 888 F.2d 653, 654 (9th Cir. 1989); Brown v. Rison, 895 F.2d 533, 535 (9th Cir. 1990).
Page 4 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Each of the factors listed in Madigan establishes, separately and cumulatively, that the Court
should reject the any complaint regarding failure to exhaust remedies.
First, [client] not only faced but has now endured irreparable harm from the delay incident
to litigation. [Client] is serving a [xx-month] sentence with a projected release date of [date],
which means that, despite eligibility for one year of community corrections, he/she/they already
has lost the opportunity for consideration of [xx] months of community corrections. See Serrato
v. Clark, 486 F.3d 560, 566 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A prisoner’s right to consideration for early release
is a valuable one that we have not hesitated to protect.”) (quoting Cort v. Crabtree, 113 F.3d 1081,
1085 (9th Cir. 1997) (emphasis in original)). Where the BOP failed to administer the sentence in
conformance with its own rules and controlling statutes, the imminent risk of irreparable harm in
the form of increased time in prison rather than community corrections excuses full exhaustion of
administrative remedies. See, e.g., Barq v. Daniels, 428 F. Supp. 2d 1147, 1150 (D. Or. 2006);
Hicks v. Hood, 203 F. Supp. 2d 379, 382 (D. Or. 2002); Buggs v. Crabtree, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1215,
1218 (D. Or. 1998).
Additionally, [client] faces irreparable harm from continued incarceration due to the
Covid-19 pandemic, as his/her/their conditions of confinement create an optimal environment for
the transmission of contagious disease.4 Public health experts believe that incarcerated individuals
“are at special risk of infection, given their living situations,” and “may also be less able to
participate in proactive measures to keep themselves safe;” “infection control is challenging in
4 Joseph A. Bick (2007). Infection Control in Jails and Prisons. Clinical Infectious Diseases 45(8):1047-1055, at
https://doi.org/10.1086/521910.
Page 5 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
these settings.”5 Crowding, inadequate ventilation, and security issues all contribute to the spread
of infectious disease.6 Hand sanitizer, an effective disinfectant recommended by the Centers for
Disease Control to reduce transmission rates, is contraband in jails and prisons because of its
alcohol content.7 [Client] suffers irreparable harm each day that he/she/they spend in prison under
conditions that cause him/her/them to be particularly susceptible to contracting Covid-19.
Second, the BOP’s administrative remedy system does not purport to make determinations
regarding whether custody violates statutes and the Constitution. Program Statement 1330.18,
Administrative Remedy Program (Jan. 6, 2014). The regulations explicitly include, as a required
step in the administrative procedure, the type of efforts with staff to raise complaints as [client]
has done. See PS 1330.18 at 4 (citing 28 C.F.R. § 542.13). In short, there is no indication the
system designed to review decisions relating to prison discipline and other such matters provides
meaningful review of the statutory and constitutional questions raised by [client].
Third, [client sought help from appropriate BOP personnel and received an
unequivocal response that they could not help him.] Exhaustion of administrative remedies is
excused where futile. See, e.g., Arrington v. Daniels, 465 F. Supp. 2d 1104, 1107 (D. Or. 2006)
(citing Fraley v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 1 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir.1993)), reversed on other
grounds, 516 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2008); Downey v. Crabtree, 923 F. Supp. 164, 165 (D. Or.),
5 “Achieving A Fair And Effective COVID-19 Response: An Open Letter to Vice-President Mike Pence, and Other
Federal, State, and Local Leaders from Public Health and Legal Experts in the United States,” (March 2, 2020), at
https://bit.ly/2W9V6oS.
6 Michael Kaste, Prisons and Jails Worry About Becoming Coronavirus ‘Incubators’, NPR (March 13, 2020)
https://www.npr.org/2020/03/13/815002735/prisons-and-jails-worry-about-becoming-coronavirus-incubators.
7 Keri Blakinger & Beth Schwarzapfel, How Can Prisons Contain Coronavirus When Purell is a Contraband?,
ABA JOURNAL (March 13, 2020) https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/when-purell-is-contraband-how-can-
prisons-contain-coronavirus.
Page 6 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
affirmed, 100 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 1996). There is no reasonable possibility that any further resort
to administrative procedures would have produced a different result.
The BOP may also raise the Prison Litigation Reform Act in an attempt to make exhaustion
mandatory. But the PLRA does not “expressly apply to habeas corpus petitions filed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241.” Hicks, 203 F. Supp. 2d at 382; see Grier v. Hood, 46 F. App’x 433, 440 (9th
Cir. 2002) (“Congress has made no indication that habeas petitioners are statutorily required to
exhaust administrative remedies before filing under Section 2241 for habeas corpus relief.”) (citing
Brown v. Rison, 895 F.2d 533, 535 (9th Cir. 1990) (“The requirement that federal prisoners exhaust
remedies before filing a habeas corpus petition was judicially created; it is not a statutory
requirement.”)). Any reliance on PLRA cases is misplaced. Just as Madigan foreclosed
application of mandatory exhaustion in the absence of an express statutory requirement, [client’s]
petition for habeas corpus relief under section 2241 is not subject to the PLRA. The Ninth Circuit
has routinely ruled on the merits regarding habeas corpus claims against the BOP’s administration
of its community corrections program. See, e.g., Sacora v. Thomas, 628 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2010)
(section 2241 class action regarding rules implementing community corrections under the Second
Chance Act); Rodriguez v. Smith, 541 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2008) (section 2241 relief granted for
implementation of BOP rules found to be inconsistent with statute). This case is not a civil action
within the purview of the PLRA.
This Court should reject any effort to insulate BOP actions the petitioner contends violated
federal law requiring individualized determinations regarding the period of community
corrections. All three of the Madigan factors excuse exhaustion of remedies, and this is a habeas
corpus case controlled by Madigan, not the PLRA. Any one of the Madigan factors would be
sufficient for this Court to review the case on the merits.
Page 7 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
B. Any Claim That Bureau Of Prisons’ Placement Decisions Are Immune From Judicial
Review Runs Counter To Controlling Ninth Circuit Authority.
While some purely discretionary decisions are insulated from judicial review, the courts
have repeatedly recognized authority to provide “judicial review for allegations that BOP action
is contrary to established federal law, violates the Constitution, or exceeds its statutory authority.”
See Rodriguez v. Copenhaver, 823 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Although a district court has
no jurisdiction over discretionary designation decisions, it does have jurisdiction to decide whether
the [BOP] acted contrary to established federal law, violated the Constitution, or exceeded its
statutory authority when it acted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621.”) (citing Close v. Thomas, 653 F.3d
970, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2011)); Abbott v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 771 F.3d 512, 514 (9th Cir. 2014)
(same).
The present case involves all of the above-listed unlawful government action, making
judicial review appropriate. The petition alleges violations of rules and statutes requiring
individualized consideration in determining the period of time in community corrections. See,
e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(3) (requiring consideration of designation decision include “the history
and characteristics of the prisoner”); 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(6)(B) (requiring regulation that includes
placement in community corrections “determined on an individual basis”); 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2)
(“The Bureau of Prisons shall, to the extent practicable, place prisoners with lower risk levels and
lower needs on home confinement for the maximum amount of time permitted under this
paragraph.”); 28 C.F.R. § 524(b) (prisoners will be notified of program reviews and are expected
to participate); Program Statement 5330.11, Psychology Treatment Programs, § 2.5.15(a)(1)(ii),
Incentives for RDAP participation, at 19 (March 16, 2009) (RDAP participants should receive
“[c]onsideration for the maximum period of time in a community-based treatment program[.]”).
Page 8 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[Client] is asserting that the BOP’s adverse action implicated the range of federal law that the
Ninth Circuit recognizes as remedial under section 2241.
C. Under The Standards For Temporary Restraining Orders, The Court Should Grant
Expedited Relief To Avoid Irreparable Harm To The Petitioner In A Manner That
Involves No Prejudice To The Respondent.
“In deciding whether to grant a motion for TRO, courts look to substantially the same
actors that apply to a court’s decision on whether to issue a preliminary injunction.” Innovation
Law Lab v. Nielsen, 310 F. Supp. 3d 1150, 1156 (D. Or. 2018). Those factors are whether 1) the
petitioner is likely to succeed on the merits; 2) the petitioner is likely to suffer irreparable harm
without preliminary relief; 3) the balance of equities tips in favor of the petitioner; and 4) a
preliminary injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20
(2008). Serious questions going to the merits and a hardship balance that tips sharply toward the
plaintiff can support issuance of an injunction, assuming the other two elements of the Winter test
are also met. Innovation Law Lab, 310 F. Supp. 3d at 1156 (citing Alliance for the Wild Rockies
v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2011)). Each factor tilts strongly toward the grant of
interim relief in the form of an order requiring immediate transfer to community corrections, in
compliance with the First Step Act and the Second Chance Act and their implementing regulations
and rules. The Court should require reconsideration based on individualized factors with an
opportunity for [client] to provide information and requests, including immediate transfer to
community corrections, in compliance with the First Step Act and the Second Chance Act and
their implementing regulations and rules.
1. The Petitioner Is Likely To Succeed On The Merits.
The writ of habeas corpus provides a vehicle for relief for prisoners who are in custody “in
violation of the laws or Constitution” of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Prisoners of
Page 9 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
the BOP are eligible for section 2241 relief where consideration for a statutory benefit is denied in
violation of federal rules or statutes or the Constitution:
Rodriguez v. Copenhaver, 823 F.3d 1238 (9th Cir. 2016) (BOP nunc pro tunc
designation decision under section 3621(b) violated statute and Constitution);
Abbott v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 771 F.3d 512 (9th Cir. 2014) (BOP
program statement invalidly expanded terms of regulation);
Rodriguez v. Smith, 541 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2008) (BOP regulations violated
clear statutory instruction);
Arrington v. Daniels, 516 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2008) (BOP regulation invalid
under the section 706 of the APA for failure to adequately articulate its
rationale); Crickon v. Thomas, 579 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2009) (same);
Bohner v. Daniels, 243 F. Supp. 2d 1171, 1172 (D. Or. 2003), aff'd sub nom.
Paulsen v. Daniels, 413 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2005) (BOP regulation and program
statement invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act for lack of notice-
and-comment);
Cort v. Crabtree, 113 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 1997) (BOP’s retroactive application
of change notice invalidly altered program statement);
Davis v. Crabtree, 109 F.3d 566, 569 (9th Cir. 1997) (BOP's implementing
regulation and program statements invalidated as inconsistent with statute);
Downey v. Crabtree, 100 F.3d 662, 667 (9th Cir. 1996) (same).
[Client’s] petition and request for emergency consideration presents compelling bases for relief,
asserting that no individualized consideration occurred as contemplated by the applicable rules and
statutes.
The statutes upon which [client] relies are mandatory congressional directives to the
agency administering judicial sentences:
The BOP shall designate the place of imprisonment considering “the history and
characteristics of the prisoner.” 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b).
“The Bureau of Prisons shall, to the extent practicable, place prisoners with lower risk
levels and lower needs on home confinement for the maximum amount of time
permitted under this paragraph.” 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2).
Page 10 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Regulations “shall issue” that “shall ensure” that placement in community corrections
“determined on an individual basis,” and be “of sufficient duration to provide the
greatest likelihood of successful reintegration into the community.” 18 U.S.C. §
3624(c)(6)(B) & (C).
“The word ‘shall’ is ordinarily the language of command.” United States v. Kowalczyk, 805 F.3d
847, 857 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Alabama v. Bozeman, 533 U.S. 146, 153 (2001)). The “maximum
period of time” is one year, with up to six months in home detention. 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c). Further,
following passage of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 602, 132 Stat. 5194, 5238,
the BOP “shall, to the extent practicable, place prisoners with lower risk levels and lower needs
on home confinement for the maximum amount of time permitted under this paragraph,” which is
“the shorter of 10 percent of the term of imprisonment of that prisoner or 6 months,” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3624(c)(2).
Individualized consideration for the maximum amount of time in community corrections
and home confinement must take into account [client’s] current potential for exposure to COVID-
19 while incarcerated. During the H1N1 epidemic in 2009, many jails and prisons dealt with high
numbers of cases because they could not maintain the level of separation and sanitation necessary
to prevent widespread infection.8 In China, officials confirmed the coronavirus spreading at a
rapid pace in Chinese prisons, counting 500 cases as of February 21, 2020.9 In the Daenam
inpatient psychiatric ward in South Korea, where conditions of confinement are similar to those at
an American jail or prison, 101 out of 103 inmates became infected with COVID-19, and, as of
February 29, 2020, seven patients had died of complications from the disease.10 The Prison Policy
8 Prisons and Jails are Vulnerable to COVID-19 Outbreaks, The Verge (Mar. 7, 2020) https://bit.ly/2TNcNZY.
9 Rhea Mahbubani, Chinese Jails Have Become Hotbeds of Coronavirus As More Than 500 Cases Have Erupted,
Prompting the Ouster of Several Officials, Business Insider (Feb. 21, 2020) at https://bit.ly/2vSzSRT.
10 Min Joo Kim, How a South Korean Psychiatric Ward Became a ‘Medical Disaster’ When Coronavirus Hit, THE
WASHINGTON POST (February 29, 2020) https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/how-a-south-korean-
Page 11 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Initiative has called on American jails and prisons to release medically fragile and older adults,
noting that these persons are at high risk for serious complications from COVID-19. 11
Individualized consideration for [client’s] placement in a community correctional facility must
take into account the heightened exposure to COVID-19 that [client] faces each day he/she/they
remains in prison.
[Client] is also likely to succeed because the unlawful agency action occurred in the
context of the BOP’s failure to carry out the statutory directive to promulgate regulations to guide
BOP personnel in making decisions regarding community corrections. The Second Chance Act,
as amended, included the following mandatory directive that the BOP issue implementing
regulations:
. . . not later than 90 days after enactment, which shall ensure that placement in a
community correctional facility is
(A) conducted in a manner consistent with section 3621(b) of this title;
(B) determined on an individual basis; and
(C) of sufficient duration to provide the greatest likelihood of successful
reintegration into the community.
18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(6). The BOP personnel still have no such regulatory direction over a decade
after this 90-day deadline. The BOP’s initial effort over ten years ago simply reiterated the five
section 3621(b) factors. Judge Marsh held that the regulation was invalid. Sacora, 628 F.3d at
1065 (“[T]he district court granted the petition with respect to the BOP’s formal regulations, 28
C.F.R. §§ 570.20–.22, finding that the BOP’s failure to use notice-and-comment provisions in
psychiatric-ward-became-a-medical-disaster-when-coronavirus-hit/2020/02/29/fe8f6e40-5897-11ea-8efd-
0f904bdd8057_story.html.
11 Peter Wagner & Emily Widra, No Need to Wait For Pandemics: The Public Health Case for Criminal Justice
Reform, Prison Policy Initiative (March 6, 2020) https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/03/06/pandemic/.
Page 12 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
promulgating those regulations violated the APA, and enjoined the BOP from considering inmates
for placement in RRCs pursuant to those regulations.”). With the regulation invalidated, the
Sacora court found that informal rules did not violate the statute or the Administrative Procedure
Act. Id. at 1069-70.
In the decade since, the BOP published a proposed rule in 2011 that utterly failed to meet
the statutory directive. 76 Fed. Reg. 58199 (Sept. 20, 2011). In fact, the proposed rule, as did the
rule invalidated by Judge Marsh, does nothing more than repeat word-for-word statutory language,
which the Supreme Court has recognized as an administrative nullity:
Simply put, the existence of a parroting regulation does not change the fact that the
question here is not the meaning of the regulation but the meaning of the statute.
An agency does not acquire special authority to interpret its own words when,
instead of using its expertise and experience to formulate a regulation, it has elected
merely to paraphrase the statutory language.
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 257 (2006). The statutory delegation was mandatory, which
defines the scope of the BOP’s lawful authority. See Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 241 (2001)
(providing examples where “Congress used ‘shall’ to impose discretionless obligations [on the
BOP]”) (emphasis added). The BOP actions without the administrative process required by
Congress are outside the lawful delegation of authority, tainting the process in its entirety. The
BOP failed to take a required step “to improve such transition to the community, including
placement of such individuals in community corrections facilities.” 34 U.S.C. § 60541(c)(2).
2. The Petitioner Is Likely To Suffer Irreparable Harm If He/She/They Does Not
Receive Preliminary Relief.
Every passing day without the required consideration for community corrections causes
[client] irreparable harm. Each day spent in prison has constitutional, and in this case also statutory
and regulatory, significance. See Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 165 (2012) (“[A]ny amount of
Page 13 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[additional] jail time has Sixth Amendment significance.”) (quoting Glover v. United States, 531
U.S. 198, 203-04 (2001)). Additionally, the global Covid-19 pandemic poses an immediate, non-
speculative, and potentially lethal risk to [client’s] health that is increased by his/her/their
continued incarceration, as discussed above.
3. The Balance Of Equities Tips In Favor Of The Petitioner.
The balance of equities strongly favors immediate relief. Not only is [client] a prisoner
held in the power of custodians who are not following their own rules, but also his/her/their
continued incarceration increases the risk that [client] and other prisoners that he/she/they come
into contact with will contract Covid-19. Asking [client’s] custodians to comply with the statutory
and constitutional minimum procedures is not unduly burdensome—especially in this time of
global pandemic. Allowing a low-risk prisoner the incentives he/she/they have earned by
increasing time in community corrections advances public and individual interests while causing
no serious governmental harm.
4. A Preliminary Injunction Is In The Public Interest.
The overarching statutory direction from Congress in the Second Chance Act and First
Step Act is to increase the use of community corrections for prisoners like [client]. In doing so,
the public interest is served in several key ways. First, by fostering reentry programs, Congress
recognized that early return to communities allowed prisoners a running start on family
reunification and programming in the community where they will be living. Second, Congress
sought to reduce the soaring cost of prisons by utilizing the significant savings accomplished by
increased use of home detention. Third, expanded use of community corrections ameliorates to
some extent the societal ills associated with mass incarceration. Finally, releasing [client] to
community corrections or home confinement would help to lower the risk that [client] and others
Page 14 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
in his/her/their facility will contract Covid-19, thereby reducing the transmission of this disease.
All these public interests are well served by grant of relief in this case.
D. If This Court Does Not Grant Expedited Relief, The Petitioner Should Be
Conditionally Released During Litigation.
[Client] requests conditional release pending litigation of his/her/their petition if this
Court declines to grant expedited relief. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that “habeas
corpus is not ‘a static, narrow, formalistic remedy,’ but one which must retain the ‘ability to cut
through barriers of form and procedural mazes.’” Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345, 349-
50 (1973) (citations omitted). This Court has the authority to order [client’s] release while
his/her/their claim is litigated. Id. at 352 (habeas authority includes the power to “order [a]
petitioner’s release pending consideration of his habeas corpus claim”) (citing In re Shuttlesworth,
369 U.S. 35 (1962)); Marino v. Vasquez, 812 F.2d 499, 507 (9th Cir. 1987) (the authority of the
court to conditionally release a prisoner pending habeas proceedings derives from the power to
issue the writ itself). [Client] suffers immediate and irreparable injury each day he/she/they
remain incarcerated and respectfully requests to be conditionally released pending the litigation of
his/her/their claim if this Court does not grant expedited relief.
Conclusion
In [his/her/their] petition and motion for emergency relief, [client] made alternative
requests for immediate transfer to community corrections and reconsideration of the designation
decision under proper rules. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2243, this Court has authority to “summarily hear
and determine the facts, and dispose of the matter as law and justice require.” Habeas corpus
provides flexible remedies to do justice in the individual case. See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S.
Page 15 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
723, 780 (2008) (Habeas “is, at its core, an equitable remedy.”) (quoting Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S.
298, 319 (1995)). On the bases of the submissions in this case and the foregoing authority, we
respectfully request that the Court 1) grant the writ of habeas corpus and either order immediate
transfer to community corrections or reconsideration of the time in community corrections without
delay, or 2) in the alternative, authorize discovery and set this matter for an expedited hearing on
the merits while conditionally releasing [client] during litigation.
Respectfully submitted this _____ day of _________, 2020.
/s/ [attorney name]
[attorney name]
Attorney for Petitioner
A. Additional Constitutional Bases for Relief.
The BOP’s noncompliance with applicable statutes and rules requiring individualized
consideration has resulted in a violation of [client’s] right to procedural due process. The
mandatory language of 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1)-(2) (“shall”) combined with the interests at stake
implicate the Fifth Amendment’s procedural due process protections. Three factors must be
balanced in evaluating the constitutional sufficiency of BOP procedures: 1) [client’s] interest in
participating in community corrections; 2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of [client’s] greater
time in community corrections; and 3) the government’s interest. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424
U.S. 319, 335 (1976). Here, the BOP’s failure to make a true individualized consideration under
sections 3621(b) and 3624(c), which must take into account the dangers posed to [client] by the
novel coronavirus pandemic, greatly increases the risk of an erroneous determination regarding
the appropriate time in prerelease custody.
Additionally, [client’s] current conditions of confinement, to the extent present
incarceration provides inadequate protection from the Covid-19 pandemic, implicate the Eighth
Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. “A prison official’s ‘deliberate
indifference’ to a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate violates the Eighth Amendment.”
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994). Courts have found that deliberate indifference may
be established by an inadequate response to a communicable disease or other exposure to health
risks. See, e.g., id. at 843 n.8 (prison official may be guilty of deliberate indifference when he
“knows that some diseases are communicable and that a single needle is being used to administer
flu shots to prisoners but refuses to listen to a subordinate who he strongly suspects will attempt
to explain the associated risk of transmitting disease”); Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35
(1993) (inmate stated a claim for “deliberate indifference” to threat to his health posed by second-
hand smoke generated by five-pack-a-day cellmate); Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 682-83 (1978)
(conditions of “punitive isolation” constituted cruel and unusual punishment because, among other
things, “[a]lthough some prisoners suffered from infectious diseases such as hepatitis and venereal
disease,” their “mattresses were removed and jumbled together each morning, then returned to the
cells at random in the evening”); Lareau v. Manson, 651 F.2d 96, 109 (2d Cir. 1981) (failure to
adequately screen newly arrived inmates for communicable diseases constituted deliberate
indifference; “it is unnecessary to require evidence that an infectious disease has actually spread
in an overcrowded jail before issuing a remedy”); Masonoff v. DuBois, 899 F. Supp. 782, 797 (D.
Mass. 1995) (inmates raised triable issue of fact regarding prison officials’ deliberate indifference
to possible spread of communicable diseases through use of chemical toilets). The BOP’s
insufficient response to the dangers posed by the novel coronavirus emergency has created a
substantial risk of serious harm to [client], in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment “is equally
pertinent to general conditions of confinement that may prevail at a prison” as it is to the actions
of a particular prison official. Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1300-01 (5th Cir. 1974) (Eighth
Amendment violated where, among other conditions, contaminated prison water supply had “led
to the spread of infectious diseases” and “inmates with serious contagious diseases” had been
“allowed to mingle with the general prison population”); see also Joy v. Healthcare CMS, 534 F.
Supp. 2d 482, 483-85 (D. Del. 2008) (inmate stated Eighth Amendment claim by alleging that
“inmates brought to the institution are housed without being quarantined and since his
incarceration he has been exposed to tuberculosis”); Satterwhite v. Dy, 2013 WL 257420, at *11
(W.D. Wash. Jan. 23, 2013) (BOP policy regarding preventing spread of tuberculosis in prison
demonstrated “societal consensus” satisfying objective component of Eighth Amendment claim
regarding treatment of latent tuberculosis); Binion v. Glover, 2008 WL 4155355, at *13 (E.D.
Mich. July 28, 2008), report and recommendation adopted, 2008 WL 4097407 (E.D. Mich. Aug.
29, 2008) (“exposure to bloodborne contagious or infectious diseases without proper protective
equipment [] satisfies the objective factor” of an Eighth Amendment violation). As explained
above, [client’s] conditions of confinement create an optimal environment for the transmission of
contagious disease like the novel coronavirus and create the sort of conditions that the Eighth
Amendment protects against.
Federal Public & Community Defenders Legislative Committee
52 Duane Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 1007
Tel: (212) 417-8738
Co-Chairs David Patton Executive Director Federal Defenders of New York Jon Sands Federal Defender District of Arizona
March 19, 2020
The Honorable William P. Barr Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 The Honorable Jeffrey A. Rosen Deputy Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Mr. Michael Carvajal Director Federal Bureau of Prisons 320 First Street NW Washington, DC 20534 Dear Attorney General Barr, Deputy Attorney Rosen, and Director Carvajal:
We write on behalf of the Federal Public and Community Defenders. At any given time, Defenders and other appointed counsel under the Criminal Justice Act represent 80 to 90 percent of all federal defendants because they cannot afford counsel.
The COVID-19 global pandemic has turned our nation’s jails and prisons into ticking time bombs. These jails and prisons do not provide adequate medical care in the best of times.1 Many prisons and
1 See U.S. Dep’t of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Medical Staffing Challenges (Mar. 2016), https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/e1602.pdf (finding that the BOP experienced chronic medical staff shortages and failed to take adequate measures to address them, leading to problems meeting the medical needs of prisoners, requiring the use of outside hospitals, and endangering the safety and security of institutions); U.S. Dep’t of Justice Office of the Inspector General, The Impact of an Aging Inmate Population on the Federal Bureau of Prisons (Rev. Feb. 2016), https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2015/e1505.pdf (finding that BOP facilities and services, including medical services, were inadequate to meet the needs of an aging prison population leading to delays in medical treatment for prisoners with acute and chronic heart and neurological conditions, who wait an average of 114 days to see medical specialists.); David Patton, Statement
Federal Public & Community Defenders Legislative Committee
52 Duane Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 1007
Tel: (212) 417-8738
2
pretrial detention facilities are dramatically understaffed,2 and populated by individuals who are older and medically compromised.3 Today, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) confirmed that two staff members were presumed positive for COVID-19, marking the first possible cases in the federal prison system.4 They are surely not the last. As BOP has itself acknowledged, the risks of the rapid transmission of contagion in the tight quarters of prisons and jails present major challenges in keeping inmates and staff safe and healthy.5 This stark reality has been widely recognized.6
Lowering the population of prisons and jails is the simplest and most effective way to disrupt the transmission of COVID-19. Our clients and other incarcerated individuals—along with the correctional officers, attorneys, and contractors who spend their days moving between prisons and
from Federal Defenders of New York, Federal Defenders of New York (Mar. 8, 2020), https://federaldefendersny.org/about-us/news/statement-from-federal-defenders-of-new-york.html.
2 See Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and Implementation of the First Step Act of 2018: Hearing before the Subcomm. on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong. 2-4 (2019) (statement of Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, Director, Fed. Bureau of Prisons).
3 See U.S. Dep’t of Justice Office of the Inspector General, The Impact of an Aging Inmate Population on the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1 (Rev. Feb. 2016) (From FY 2009 to FY 2013 “the number of inmates age 50 and older in BOP-managed institutions was the fastest growing segment of the BOP population, increasing by 25 percent.”); Erica Zunkel, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)’s Undervalued Sentencing Command: Providing a Federal Criminal Defendant with Rehabilitation, Training, and Treatment in “the Most Effective Manner,” Notre Dame J. Int’l & Comp. L., Vol. 9: Issue 1, Article 5, at 57– 61 (2019) (detailing how, even before this crisis, the BOP’s overcrowding, staffing shortages, and treatment approach compromise its ability to provide adequate medical care to people in federal prisons, in particular those fifty and older).
4 See Cassidy McDonald, Federal Prison Workers Say Conflicting Orders on Coronavirus Response is Putting Lives at Risk, CBS News (Mar. 19, 2020), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-prison-federal-employees-say-conflicting-orders-putting-lives-at-risk-2020-03-19/.
5 See Fed. Bureau of Prisons, Program Statement 6190.04: Infectious Disease Management (2014).
6 See Joseph A. Bick, Infection Control in Jails and Prisons, 45 Clinical Infectious Diseases 1047-155 (2007), https://doi.org/10.1086/521910; Gregg S. Gonsalves, et al., Achieving A Fair And Effective COVID-19 Response: An Open Letter to Vice-President Mike Pence, and Other Federal, State, and Local Leaders from Public Health and Legal Experts in the United States (March 2, 2020), https://bit.ly/2W9V6oS (open letter signed by 815 experts in public health, law, and human rights); see also, Danielle Ivory, ‘We Are Not a Hospital’: A Prison Braces for the Coronavirus, N.Y. Times (Mar. 17, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/us/coronavirus-prisons-jails.html; Martin Kaste, Prisons and Jails Worry About Becoming Coronavirus ‘Incubators’, NPR (March 13, 2020), https://www.npr.org/2020/03/13/815002735/prisons-and-jails-worry-about-becoming-coronavirus-incubators; Keri Blakinger & Beth Schwarzapfel, How Can Prisons Contain Coronavirus When Purell is a Contraband?, ABA JOURNAL (March 13, 2020), https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/when-purell-is-contraband-how-can-prisons-contain-coronavirus; Jennifer Hansler & Kylie Atwood, Pompeo Calls for Humanitarian Release of Wrongfully Detained Americans in Iran Amid Coronavirus Outbreak, CNN (Mar. 10, 2020), https://cnn.it/2W4OpV7.
Federal Public & Community Defenders Legislative Committee
52 Duane Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 1007
Tel: (212) 417-8738
3
the public—are in grave and imminent danger.7 We urge you to use existing authority to take immediate and decisive action to both reduce the number of people entering federal detention and release individuals who are already incarcerated. Failure to do so may well be a death sentence for many.
It is imperative that the Department of Justice immediately take the following two steps:
1. Direct all United States Attorneys’ Offices to minimize arrests, decline to seek detention of individuals at their initial appearance in court and consent to the release of those already detained except in cases involving a specific and substantial risk that a person will cause bodily injury to or use violent force against the person of another; and
2. Direct BOP to utilize its existing authorities under the First Step Act and Second Chance Act to maximize the use of community corrections and compassionate release.
A. The Department of Justice Should Take Immediate Measures to Suspend New Arrests, Reduce Court Appearances, And Reduce Pretrial Detention.
Numerous state and local jurisdictions have already taken smart steps to dramatically reduce the number of people entering and remaining in detention.8 DOJ and Immigrations and Customs
7 Over 175,000 individuals are incarcerated in federal prisons and jails, and thousands of people move in and out of federal prisons every day. See U.S. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, Statistics, https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/population_statistics.jsp. 8 See, e.g., Tim Prudente & Phillip Jackson, Baltimore State’s Attorney Mosby to Stop Prosecuting Drug Possession, Prostitution, and Other Crimes Amid Coronavirus, Baltimore Sun (Mar. 18, 2020), https://www.baltimoresun.com/coronavirus/bs-md-ci-cr-mosby-prisoner-release-20200318-u7knneb6o5gqvnqmtpejftavia-story.html (Baltimore State’s Attorney ordered staff to “dismiss pending criminal charges against anyone arrested for possessing drugs including heroin, attempted distribution of any drug, prostitution, trespassing, minor traffic offenses, open container and urinating in public”); Erica Orden, Brooklyn Will Stop Prosecuting “Low-Level Offenses that Don’t Jeopardize Public Safety,” CNN (Mar. 17, 2020), https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/coronavirus-outbreak-03-17-20-intl-hnk/h_0254c4f54c1c52e79ce419e22ca35e6b (Brooklyn DA will stop prosecuting low-level offenses and is also asking public defenders to inform office of vulnerable clients detained pretrial whom the DA “should consider releasing during this crisis”); Max Marin & Rya Briggs, Philly Police to Halt Narcotic Arrests, Other Charges During COVID Outbreak, WHYY.org (Mar. 17, 2020), https://whyy.org/articles/philly-police-to-halt-narcotics-arrests-other-charges-during-covid-outbreak/ (Philadelphia Police Commissioner instructed department to delay arrests for low-level criminal offenses, including all narcotics activity); Darwin BondGraham, San Francisco Officials Push to Reduce Jail Population to Prevent Coronavirus Outbreak, The Appeal (Mar. 11, 2020), https://theappeal.org/coronavirus-san-francisco-reduce-jail-population/ (District Attorney “directed prosecutors not to oppose motions to release pretrial detainees facing misdemeanor charges or drug-related felony charges if the person is deemed to pose no threat to public safety. [He] also directed his staff to ‘strongly consider’ credit for time served in plea deals so that more people can be released”); see also Julia Marsh & Ben Feuerherd, NYC to Begin Releasing Inmates Amid Coronavirus Outbreak, N.Y. Post (Mar. 18, 2020), https://nypost.com/2020/03/18/nyc-to-begin-releasing-inmates-amid-coronavirus-outbreak/ (“Mayor Bill de Blasio plans to release ‘vulnerable’ inmates from city jails to prevent the spread of the coronavirus pandemic into local lockups”).
Federal Public & Community Defenders Legislative Committee
52 Duane Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 1007
Tel: (212) 417-8738
4
Enforcement (ICE) have taken initial—but insufficient—steps in the same direction.9 DOJ should immediately expand their efforts more broadly.
These changes will neither jeopardize public safety nor increase failure to appear rates; data proves that higher federal release rates do not lead to more crime or flight.10 Even before this crisis, the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee lamented that federal “release rates have steeply declined” since the passage of the Bail Reform Act, and said, “surely community safety does not justify this trend.”11
U.S. Attorney’s offices should be directed to:
1. Decline or suspend prosecutions, except in cases involving a specific and substantial risk that a person will cause bodily injury to or use violent force against the person of another.
2. Seek arrest warrants only in cases involving a specific and substantial risk that a person will cause bodily injury to or use violent force against the person of another, and recall outstanding warrants in cases that do not involve such a risk;
3. Decline to seek detention of individuals at their initial appearance in court and consent to the release of those already detained absent cases involving a specific and substantial risk that a person will cause bodily injury to or use violent force against the person of another. Failure to adopt this policy would run afoul of the Constitution; pretrial detention under these
9 See Maria Sacchetti & Arelis Hernandez, ICE to Stop Most Immigration Enforcement Inside U.S., Will Focus on Criminals During Coronavirus Outbreak, Wash. Post (Mar. 18, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ice-halting-most-immigration-enforcement/2020/03/18/d0516228-696c-11ea-abef-020f086a3fab_story.html.
10 In 2019, fully 99% of released federal defendants nationwide appeared for court, and over 98% did not commit new offenses while on bond. See AO Table H-15, http://jnet.ao.dcn/sites/default/files/pdf/H15_Ending12312019.pdf (showing a nationwide failure to appear rate of 1.1% and a rearrest rate of 1.8% in 2019).
These numbers hold steady for the federal districts with the highest release rates in the country. In 2019, the six districts with the highest release rates (average 69.08%) had an average failure to appear rate of 0.42% and an average re-arrest rate of 0.91%. See AO Table H-15; Table H-14A, https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/data_tables/jb_h14a_0930.2019.pdf.
11 The Administration of Bail by State and Federal Courts: A Call for Reform: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong. 50:55 (2019), https://judiciary.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=2256.
Federal Public & Community Defenders Legislative Committee
52 Duane Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 1007
Tel: (212) 417-8738
5
circumstances is not purely “regulatory in nature,” but rather “constitute[s] punishment before trial in violation of the Due Process Clause.”12
B. BOP Should Immediately Accelerate And Expand Inmates’ Transfer To Community Corrections.
We strongly urge BOP to exercise its discretion to designate inmates to community corrections under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) to maximize the length of time prisoners eligible for community corrections participate in such programs. Because the average time individuals spend in community corrections has been only about one third of the available time, increased utilization of community corrections could result in a substantial difference in the prison population.13 The Second Chance Act expanded to one year the amount of time a prisoner can spend in community placement and provided that the lesser of up to six months of that time, or ten percent of the sentence imposed, could be spent in home confinement. 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c). The First Step Act took pains to underscore this expansion, providing in section 602:
Home confinement authority. – The authority under this subsection may be used to place a prisoner in home confinement for the shorter of 10 percent of the term of imprisonment of that prisoner or 6 months. The Bureau of Prisons shall, to the extent practicable, place prisoners with lower risk levels and lower needs on home confinement for the maximum amount of time permitted under this paragraph.14
BOP has directed staff to comply with this directive.15
Accelerating and expanding the use of community corrections in response to the national emergency is consistent with statutes and rules that require individualized consideration of the length of community corrections.16 General and specific risks arising from the COVID-19 pandemic must be
12 United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 748 (1987).
13 See, e.g., U.S. Dep’t of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Audit of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Management of Inmate Placements in Residential Reentry Centers and Home Confinement 22 (Nov. 2016).
14 The First Step Act of 2018, § 602, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5238 (2018) (amending 18 U.S.C. § 2624(c)(2)) (emphasis added).
15 See Fed. Bureau of Prisons, Operations Memorandum: 001-2019 at 2, Home Confinement under the First Step Act, (Apr. 4, 2019) (providing that “staff should refer eligible inmates for the maximum amount of time permitted under the statutory requirements”).
16 See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(3) (requiring consideration of designation decision include the “characteristics of the prisoner”); 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(6)(B) (requiring regulation that includes placement in community corrections “determined on an individual basis”); 28 C.F.R. § 524.11(b) (providing for program reviews with prisoner participation). In addition, BOP would be meeting the statutory directives calling for maximum time in community corrections for certain categories of prisoners. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2) (“The Bureau of Prisons shall, to the extent practicable, place prisoners with lower risk levels and lower needs on home confinement for the maximum amount of time permitted under this paragraph.”); 34 U.S.C. § 60541 (a)(2)(A) (“Incentives for a prisoner who participates in reentry and skill development programs which may, at the discretion of the Director, include [] the maximum period in a community confinement facility”); Fed. Bureau
Federal Public & Community Defenders Legislative Committee
52 Duane Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 1007
Tel: (212) 417-8738
6
considered in making these individualized assessments. BOP currently has the authority to immediately and significantly expand its use of community-based correctional facilities. Congress recognized the value of providing community-based reentry by both doubling the time of community corrections in the Second Chance Act and by expanding potential community corrections beyond one year for certain prisoners eligible for earned time credits in the First Step Act. Full utilization of community corrections to reduce BOP’s population is consistent with Congress’s purpose in enacting those laws.
BOP can exercise its designation authority to address COVID-19 by directing staff to reassess, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), whether individuals can be immediately transferred to community corrections for the maximum available time or otherwise accelerate transfer to community corrections. BOP should also increase use of the elderly offender pilot program for home confinement, as modified by § 603 of the First Step Act.17 The First Step Act’s expansion of this program reflects the lower recidivism rate for elderly offenders and allows BOP to place vulnerable offenders over 60 years old in home confinement for a larger portion of their sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(c)(1); 34 U.S.C. § 60541(g)(1)(C).
C. BOP Should Expand The “Extraordinary And Compelling Reasons” In Program Statement 5050.50 To Include Vulnerability To COVID-19.
The First Step Act expanded sentencing courts’ discretion to reduce sentences based on “extraordinary and compelling reasons” under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The COVID-19 pandemic unquestionably constitutes “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified persons over the age of 60, as well as persons with diabetes, respiratory problems, and compromised immune systems as facing special danger from COVID-19.18
BOP should respond to this national emergency by amending its policy statement on compassionate release to specifically include consideration of those individuals in prison whose health is most at risk with this pandemic. The United States Sentencing Commission’s examples of extraordinary and compelling reasons in the commentary to the compassionate release guideline recognize BOP’s continued authority to recommend a reduction in sentence based on factors other than those already identified. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, comment n.1(D). By informally amending its compassionate release program statement on an emergency basis,19 BOP could directly address the need for judicial
of Prisons, Program Statement 5330.11: Psychology Treatment Programs, § 2.5.15(a)(1)(ii) (incentives for RDAP participation), 19 (2009) (RDAP participants should receive “[c]onsideration for the maximum period of time in a community-based treatment program[.]”).
17 See First Step Act of 2018, § 603, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5238 (2018); see also Fed. Bureau of Prisons, Operations Memorandum: 001-2019, Home Confinement under the First Step Act (Apr. 4, 2019).
18 See Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Are You at High Risk for Severe Illness? (March 12, 2020), https://bit.ly/2vgUt1P.
19 See Fed. Bureau of Prisons, Program Statement 5050.50: Compassionate Release/Reduction in Sentence Procedures for Implementation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583 and 4205(g) (2019).
Federal Public & Community Defenders Legislative Committee
52 Duane Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 1007
Tel: (212) 417-8738
7
consideration of reduced sentences for those who are particularly susceptible to COVID-19, with the sentencing judge making the ultimate decision on whether to grant a reduction.
This simple yet significant policy change would make it easier for courts to remove vulnerable inmates from prison while at the same time making prisons safer by lowering the inmate population. This change would be most effective if BOP used the same mechanisms for publicity and assistance in contacting counsel for terminal conditions to identify and notify individuals who are particularly vulnerable to complications from COVID-19. BOP should address compassionate release requests from these individuals on an expedited basis with a presumption in favor of release to supervision in the community. In 2019, BOP took an average of 39 days to determine whether to file a Reduction in Sentence motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) for terminally ill prisoners and 58 days for debilitated prisoners. For individuals requesting compassionate release for non-medical reasons such as elderly age, or to serveas a caretaker to a child or spouse, the BOP took an average of 171 days.20 That year, 41 people died waiting for action on their request.21 These delays must be cut dramatically if vulnerable prisoners are to be protected during an outbreak. The COVID-19 pandemic creates heightened risks for detained individuals and the greater community that must and can be addressed immediately. We welcome any opportunity to provide you with additional information and support for these critical and time-sensitive next steps.
Sincerely,
s/ David Patton Executive Director, Federal Defenders of New York Co-Chair, Federal Defender Legislative Committee
s/
Jon Sands Federal Public Defender for the District of Arizona Co-Chair, Federal Defender Legislative Committee
s/
Lisa Freeland Federal Public Defender for the Western District of Pennsylvania Chair, Defender Services Advisory Group
20 See Federal Bureau of Prisons, Compassionate Release Program - First Step Act of 2018, Report to Congress 4 (Feb. 13, 2020).
21 See id. at 4-5.