Tag Archives: cover-19

When It Comes to Compassionate Release, § 3553 Matters – Update for July 27, 2020

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

3RD CIRCUIT SAYS § 3553 MATTERS IN COMPASSIONATE RELEASE

compassionlimit200727Before The First Step Act passed in December 2018, only the Federal Bureau of Prisons could file a motion on behalf of an inmate seeking a “compassionate release” sentence reduction under 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A). Disgusted with the BOP’s chariness on seeking releases for sick or dying inmates, Congress included a provision in First Step authorizing prisoners to seek compassionate release directly, after asking the BOP to do so and then waiting 30 days while the BOP either refused or dithered.

Even after First Step passed, compassionate release was not widely used, with something like only about 150 decisions between First Step’s passage and the COVID-19 pandemic. But since the virus, compassionate release has been a fast-growing area of the law. LEXIS records over 2,750 decisions involving COVID-19 and compassionate release. And as of last week, the BOP says that 916 compassionate release sentence reductions have been granted.

Because compassionate release filed by movants other than the government is fairly new, there is very little appellate court interpretation of the statute. The 3rd Circuit, which gave us a terrible decision on exhaustion of remedies under 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A) 16 weeks ago in United States v. Raia, last week handed down a more reasoned decision on application of 18 USC § 3553(a) sentencing factors in compassionate release cases.

To earn a compassionate release sentence reduction, a defendant has to make three showings: First, that the reasons for the reduction are “extraordinary and compelling;” second, that the defendant is not a danger to the community; and third, that grant of a sentence reduction is consistent with the sentencing factors in 18 USC § 3553(a). That statute, of course, addresses the considerations a district court should include in making sentencing decisions.

corruption200727Edwin Pawlowski had been mayor of Allentown, Pennsylvania, before the feds convicted him for bribery and other political crimes resulting from his shaking down city contractors (a Pennsylvania political sport, if reports from Philadelphia over the past half a century are any guide). He got 180 months, and has served 19 months so far.

Ed filed a motion with his sentencing court for compassionate release, arguing that he suffers from hypertension, heart disease, COPD, dyspnea, and sleep apnea. All of this is exacerbated by his only having one lung. Ed argued these conditions place him at a higher risk of serious illness from COVID-19 if he catches it, and noted that he is locked up in an FCI that has been badly affected by COVID-19.

The court agreed that all that was true, and that these reasons were extraordinary and compelling bases for compassionate release. However, the district court ruled that the § 3553(a) sentencing factors did not weigh in favor of release, as Ed had served just 10% or so of his 15-year sentence.

In late June, the 3rd Circuit upheld the district court in a non-precedential opinion. Last week, it amended that opinion and made it binding precedent.

The Circuit held that the district court “reasonably concluded that several of the § 3553(a) factors – including the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and afford adequate deterrence – counsel against compassionate release, as that relief would effectively reduce Pawlowski’s sentence from 15 years to less than two years’ imprisonment. We have not previously considered whether a district court abuses its discretion by denying a motion for compassionate release based on the amount of time remaining to be served in the inmate’s sentence. But numerous district courts have taken this into account in considering whether to grant compassionate release… And at least one of our sister circuits has approved that consideration…”

allentown200727The Circuit reasoned that “because a defendant’s sentence reflects the sentencing judge’s view of the § 3553(a) factors at the time of sentencing, the time remaining in that sentence may — along with the circumstances underlying the motion for compassionate release and the need to avoid unwarranted disparities among similarly situated inmates — inform whether immediate release would be consistent with those factors. Hence we cannot conclude that the district court acted unreasonably in determining that the substantial sentencing reduction required for granting compassionate release here… would be inconsistent with the § 3553(a) factors.”

Here, Ed’s original sentence was within the Guidelines. The district court found that Ed’s crimes “were extraordinarily serious, involving abuse of a position of public trust,” and that these crimes required “a significant period of incarceration.” The district court also found that cutting Ed’s “sentence to time served would result in his serving less time than… his former campaign manager and coconspirator, who pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 60 months.”

Sentencing Law and Policy, Back by popular demand, another VERY long list of federal sentence reductions using § 3582(c)(1)(A) (July 19, 2020)

United States v. Pawlowski, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 23431 (3rd Cir., July 24, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

Starting Phase Seven (Because the First Six Have Worked So Well) – Update for May 26, 2020

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

TIME FOR PHASE SEVEN…

The BOP launched Phase Seven of its COVID-19 Action Plan last week, announcing (among other things) that it will begin moving about 6,800 inmates who have been waiting in local detention centers across the U.S. to federal prisons to avoid further jail overcrowding.

fail200526 And why not? When Phase Five began on April 2, the BOP had 75 sick inmates, 39 sick staff and two inmate deaths from COVID-19. That was over 3,000 COVID-19 cases ago. With a record of success like that, the BOP really ought to stick with a winner, and implement Phase Seven.

BOP Director Michael Carvajal told BOP staff in his weekly video message that the BOP will set up three designated testing and quarantine sites, at FTC Oklahoma City, FCC Yazoo City and FCC Victorville. The transferees will be tested for COVID-19 when they arrive at the quarantine site facility and again when they are transferred to their designation institution.

No plans have been announced for mass testing of people currently in BOP facilities, although groups as diverse as the ACLU and the Council of Prison Locals (representing 30,000 BOP employees,  earlier this month called for universal testing in all prisons.

crazynumbers200519The number of inmate COVID-19 cases reported by the BOP dropped throughout the past week from 2,402 to 1,603, but the staff COVID-19 case numbers have remained stubbornly above 175. Likewise, the number of institutions with active COVID-19 cases has remained above 50. Three more inmates died last week, bringing the total dead to 60. More ominously, at least two facilities that had reported COVID-19 inmate cases but were later declared to be coronavirus-free are back on the list: FCI Talladega reports one inmate and one staff member with the illness, and FMC Devens- with no cases just two weeks ago – reports 24 inmates and two staff sick with the virus.

The real problem with the BOP numbers is that no one really believes them. Reuters reported last week that while a May 6 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that surveyed local, state and federal prisons for COVID-19 reported 5,000 inmate cases. Reuters performed its own data analysis, and found about 17,300, over three times CDC’s tally.

The infectious disease experts who filed the Supreme Court amicus brief in the FCI Elkton case noted that “over 3,000 confirmed cases of coronavirus have emerged in BOP’s federal correctional facilities. Given the dearth of testing, these numbers likely dramatically understate the problem.”

gtfo200526Incidentally, at the facility that started it all for the BOP, FCC Oakdale, has resumed universal testing of inmates. Also, last Friday, USA Today reported that the BOP reassigned Oakdale warden Rodney Myers to “temporary duty” at the BOP South Central Regional Office.

Although the BOP did not elaborate on the reason for the move, Ronald Morris, president of the local union representing the corrections workers, told the Wall Street Journal last Friday, “Warden Myers’s continued negligence and endangering of staff and inmates was creating a more difficult situation to control the spread of Covid-19.”

USA Today said that Myers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Reuters, Across U.S., COVID-19 takes a hidden toll behind bars (May 18)

USA Today, Feds reassign warden at Louisiana prison hit hard by coronavirus (May 22)

Wall Street Journal, Warden at Prison Besieged by Coronavirus Is Reassigned (May 22)

KDBC-TV, El Paso, Texas, Federal prison system to begin moving nearly 7K inmates (May 22)

– Thomas L. Root

The World Turned Upside Down – Update for May 21, 2020

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

BOP SCURRIES TO SUPREME COURT IN BID TO STOP DISTRICT COURT ORDER TO PROTECT VULNERABLE INMATES

Now for the continuing saga of Judge Gwin versus FCI Elkton – in which the Cleveland-based federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against the Federal Bureau of Prisons facility because the conditions of confinement of inmates especially vulnerable to COVID-19 was likely to constitute “deliberate indifference” (a term loaded with 8th Amendment implications)… as the BOP runs to the Supreme Court to complain about an (allegedly) out-of-control federal district court.

bartleby200521Last month, as we described at the time, Judge James Gwin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted a preliminary injunction ordering BOP officials at FCI Elkton (located about 70 miles southeast of Cleveland) to identify, and then to start transferring or releasing to home confinement medically vulnerable prisoners. The BOP promptly appealed this order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, but the Sixth bounced the appeal in a brief order finding that Judge Gwin had not abused his discretion.

Bartleby the Scrivener has nothing on the BOP. Having lost its interlocutory attempt to force the inmate plaintiffs into interminable trench warfare over their habeas corpus action – and thus let time and inmate attrition take care of Elkton’s coronavirus outbreak – the BOP simply chose to ignore the Judge’s injunction. Last Tuesday, an apparently fed-up Judge Gwin let the BOP know who in the case had a robe and gavel, and who did not.

On Tuesday, the Court ruled that BOP officials had not complied with his directive from last month to clear out Elkton to address the spread of coronavirus, which has already killed nine Elkton inmates (out of 58 federal inmates nationally) and infected over 100 others. The Judge noted that of 837 inmates identified as medically vulnerable to COVID-19, the BOP had “made only minimal effort to get at-risk inmates out of harm’s way. As of May 8, 2020, five subclass members were “pending [home confinement] community placement.” Six inmates were identified as maybe qualifying for home confinement. No inmates were deemed eligible for furlough transfer. But to date, Respondents have not identified any inmates whose confinement has actually been enlarged as a consequence of the preliminary injunction.”

Charitably characterizing the BOP’s efforts to date as “limited,” Judge Gwin ordered the BOP to loosen requirements on who qualifies for placement on home confinement under the Bureau’s CARES Act authority by

• eliminating requirements about length of his or her sentence an inmate has served (reversing the BOP’s position that an inmate had to have served 50% of his or her entire sentence, or 25% and have less than 18 months to go, in order to be eligible);

• disregarding whether they committed had certain low or moderate offenses within the past 12 months (reversing the BOP’s position that any disciplinary report in the past 12 months – from possessing a shank or taking an apple from the chow hall to eat later) – was automatically disqualifying);

• eliminating a BOP requirement that the inmate be a U.S. citizen in order to get CARES Act home confinement placement;

• eliminating the requirement that an inmate with a “low” PATTERN risk score be denied CARES Act home confinement placement; and

• disregarding the fact that an inmate is serving time for a “violent” crime (and “violence” is being defined more broadly by the BOP than by any other government agency interpreting federal law) if the crime occurred more than five years ago.

The judge instructed the BOP to explain in detail to the court why any inmate was denied CARES Act placement or Bureau recommendation for compassionate release furloughed or moved to another facility, the prisons bureau must also explain why.

Calvin thumb on noseThe judge’s order observed that “[b]y thumbing their nose at their authority to authorize home confinement, Respondents threaten staff and they threaten low security inmates.”

But the BOP immediately struck back. Late yesterday, the BOP filed an application for a Supreme Court stay of Judge Gwin’s preliminary injunction “pending appeal of that injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and, if the court of appeals affirms the injunction, pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari and any further proceedings in this Court.”

donothing200521

After the predictable self-serving explanations to the Supreme Court that “the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is working assiduously to mitigate those risks within its facilities by implementing a multi-phase plan it developed in January 2020,” the application for stay complains that “the district court’s injunction — now augmented by the court’s sweeping May 19 order — would undermine BOP’s systemic response to the COVID-19 pandemic; intrude the Judicial Branch on policy decisions that have been assigned to expert prison administrators; and require BOP to defy the CDC’s guidance to restrict prisoner movements during the pandemic to avoid unnecessary risk of spreading the virus.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who is assigned as Circuit Justice for the Sixth Circuit, has ordered the inmate petitioners to file a response by tomorrow morning.

Order, Dkt. 85, Wilson v. Williams, Case No. 4:20cv00794 (N.D. Ohio, issued May 19, 2020)

Application for a Stay of the Injunction Issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and for an Administrative Stay, Williams v. Wilson, Case No. 19A-____ (Supreme Court, May 20, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

No Pants, Sneaky Releases and Weird Numbers – Update for May 19, 2020

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

JUDGE DEPANTS BOP CARES ACT EFFORTS, WHILE TRUMP BUDDY JUMPS HOME CONFINEMENT LINE

Last week’s top three developments in the BOP’s response to the coronavirus pandemic were a federal court’s grant of a preliminary injunction against FCI Danbury, the CARES Act release to home confinement of President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and the BOP’s unusual COVID-19 inmate numbers.

depants200519In Connecticut, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction ordering the FCI Danbury warden to promptly identify inmates with COVID-19 risk conditions and to begin aggressively evaluating requests by prisoners for transfer to home confinement or compassionate release. The judge ruled that the FCI Danbury administration had failed to carry out Attorney General William Barr’s April 3 memo ordering the BOP to “maximize” emergency authority granted by the March 28 CARES Act to release inmates to home confinement.

The Danbury inmates — men and woman confined at three facilities within the complex — complained in the lawsuit that the institution was intentionally dragging its feet on compliance with Barr’s memo. The inmates argued — and the court agreed — that prisoner releases or transfers are necessary to decrease congestion and permit adequate social distancing within the institution.

The order gives the Danbury warden less than two weeks to provide him with a list of inmates eligible for transfer to home confinement. In the case of the ineligible inmates, the judge ordered the prison to provide explanations. While the judge did not grant a preliminary injunction on inmate requests for mass transfer of inmates to other institutions or home confinement, and for appointment of a special master to enforce virus mitigation measures in the prison, but he ordered an expedited hearing schedule to take up the questions.

The 74-page order blasts Danbury’s chary use of CARES Act authority and compassionate release. In the suit, the BOP admitted that since March 19, FCI Danbury staff received 241 requests for compassionate release. Of these, 136 had been denied, 18 were returned to the inmate for further information, and 87 were still awaiting review. The court observed that

the figures make clear that the FCI Danbury staff has, to date, not granted a single request for compassionate release—a batting average that is dramatically less favorable to inmates than the frequency with which courts in this District are granting Section 3582 motions… This suggests that the Warden is setting an impossible high bar for these requests. Alternatively, it suggest that the Warden has not set a new standard for compassionate release in light of the pandemic, but is applying an obsolete one that takes no account of the risk of illness or death to medically vulnerable inmates from COVID-19.

Danbury’s use of CARES Act authority fared no better. “In spite of the explicit statutory authorization in the CARES Act to make widespread use of home confinement in response to the threat posed by COVID-19, and the exhortations of the head of the government department in which the Bureau of Prison sits,” the Court wrote, “the implementation of this directive at FCI Danbury has been slow and inflexible.” Noting the Warden’s admission that only 159 inmates have been reviewed and a mere 21 inmates actually been placed on CARES Act home confinement, the Court said, “the criteria apparently being used by the Respondents to evaluate inmates for home confinement evidence a disregard for the seriousness of the health risk faced by vulnerable inmates…. In fact, the inmate bulletins make clear that those who have not served a specified percentage of their sentences are categorically disqualified: any inmate who has not served at least 50% of his or her sentence is deemed ineligible for home confinement, irrespective of vulnerability to COVID-19.”

Someone in the BOP must have read the Danbury order, because the very next morning, an inmate was sent to CARES Act home confinement who had only completed 25% of his sentence, and was not housed in a prison that had any COVID-19. Unfortunately for the BOP, the prisoner was named Paul Manafort.

linejump200519

Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, pled guilty in one federal case and was convicted after a trial in a second, and is about as high-profile as a federal prisoner can be. His release to home confinement in the predawn hours of last Wednesday spurred immediate denunciations of the unequal treatment of prisoners in a criminal justice system in which the wealthy and well-connected jump the line while millions of others are forced to face the spreading coronavirus pandemic with little or no hope of release.

The BOP explained that the agency “ha[s] wide discretion over who is granted home confinement,” the Des Moines Register reported. While there have been no reported cases of coronavirus at FCI Loretto, Manafort’s lawyers had previously argued that the “growing number of cases in Pennsylvania” meant it was “only a matter of time before the infection spreads to staff and inmates.” The attorneys said last month that high-risk inmates, such as their client, had to be removed from the prison before the virus arrived.

The Manafort home confinement is already being thrown in the face of U.S. Attorneys arguing against compassionate release on the grounds that the defendant has not served enough time, or that there is no coronavirus at the facility.

The BOP’s COVID-19 numbers took a puzzling dip last week. Following a tour of FCI Terminal Island Tuesday, Congresswoman Nanette Barragán, D-California, said the conditions inside the prison fall short of the federal government’s responsibility to protect inmates during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Apparently Barragán’s complaints did not fall upon deaf ears. As of Monday night, FCI Terminal Island was reporting 693 inmates sick with coronavirus. As soon as Barragán completed her visit, Terminal Island’s sick inmate count fell to 150 inmates, a 79% decrease.

Huffpost reported that “a proactive testing and segregation strategy that Bureau of Prisons officials and the Los Angeles Department of Public Health implemented late last month has seemingly produced a rapid reduction in the cases. Faced with the health crisis, officials took dramatic steps ― a lockdown of the facility, mandated testing of all prisoners, and separating inmates by their COVID-19 status.”

The BOP told Huffpost that an “aggressive testing and quarantine mitigation strategy” has led to the recovery of more than 567 inmates have recovered, while 130 remain infected. Eight Terminal Island inmates died in the pandemic.

crazynumbers200519A week ago, the BOP reported 3,385 inmate COVID-19 cases, with 48 dead. As of last night, there are 2,402 inmate cases. Eight more federal inmates died in the last week, bringing the death toll to 57. More ominously, the number of institutions with reported COVID-19 has climbed from 51 to 54 as of Sunday (but fell to 49 last night), and staff coronavirus cases climbed from 250 a week ago to 284 as of Sunday, before taking a dive to 196 last night.

The numbers seem to move of their own volition. As Reuters pointed out yesterday, “federal prisons, which typically limit testing to inmates with obvious symptoms, reported confirmed infections in fewer than 4,200 of their total inmate population of about 150,000, with 52 deaths.” As this blog has noted before, if you don’t test, you can’t count.

Rather crazy, but hardly reliable.

Long Beach, California, Post, Terminal Island is failing to protect inmates from COVID-19, congresswoman says after tour (May 13)

Hartford Courant, U.S. Judge backs prison inmates in Danbury on COVID-19 suit, orders warden to move fast on requests for release (May 12)

Martinez-Brooks v. Easter, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83300 (D.Conn. May 12, 2020)

Common Dreams, ‘Manafort Released. But [Insert Name] Still Locked Up’: Special Treatment for Trump Crony Denounced (May 13)

Des Moines Register, Ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort released from prison amid coronavirus pandemic (May 13)

Daily Beast, Paul Manafort’s Prison Had No Coronavirus Cases. He Was Released Anyway. (May 13)

Huffpost, Lockdown At Terminal Island Federal Prison Curbs Deadly Coronavirus Outbreak (May 15)

– Thomas L. Root

BOP Rewrites Standards for CARES Act Home Confinement – Update for April 21, 2020

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

INTERNAL MEMO TOUGHENS CARES ACT HOME CONFINEMENT STANDARDS

slowroll200421A recently-released prisoner complained to a TV station that FCI Butner was “slow-rolling” COVID-19 releases. A 76-year old federal prisoner told the Wall Street Journal that so far has been unable to convince officials to release him despite his age and history of respiratory problems. “It’s like pushing a wet noodle up the hill with your nose,” he said said. An attorney representing the plaintiffs in the FCI Oakdale lawsuit complained last Monday that only three Oakdale prisoners have been given CARES Act releases. The Houston Chronicle said last Thursday that “as the coronavirus crisis raises concerns about mass infections at prisons and jails, few federal prisoners from southeast Texas have cleared the gauntlet for compassionate early release.”

A lot of criticism. And what does the BOP say in its defense?

The BOP says it has been releasing inmates at a prodigious rate, with more than 1,119 sent to home confinement as of last Wednesday. Most recently, the entire population of FCI Otisville camp (111 inmates) was sent to quarantine in preparation for release to home confinement.

But those who suggest that the BOP talks one game while playing a different one might point to an internal guidance memorandum the BOP issued to its staff last week, one that restricts those who can go to home confinement well beyond what Attorney General Barr directed.

bureaucrat200421In an affidavit filed in the Western District of Louisiana, an FCI Oakdale Associate Warden reported that “on April 15, 2020 we received a memorandum from BOP’s Correctional Programs Division, confirming the factors to be used when reviewing and referring inmates for home confinement. These factors remain: 1) Primary or prior offense is not violent; 2) Primary or prior offense is not a sex offense; 3) Primary or prior offense is not terrorism; 4) No detainer; 5) Mental Health Care Level is less than IV; 6) PATTERN… score is Minimum; 7) No Incident Reports in the past 12 months; 8) US Citizen; and 9) have a viable release plan.”

The BOP criteria are more restrictive than what Barr specified in his March 26th and April 3rd memos. Barr only made violence, sex or terrorism disqualifying if any of those was present in the offense of conviction, the crime for which the inmate is now serving time. Plus, Barr did not outright disqualify for an incident report in the past year, or a PATTERN score above minimum. Rather, his memo merely said that such factors “would not [be] receiving priority treatment,” implying that they would be weighed against other factors.

The AG directed the BOP that “in assessing which inmates should be granted home confinement pursuant to this Memorandum, you are to consider the totality of circumstances for each individual inmate, the statutory requirements for home confinement, and the following non-exhaustive list of discretionary factors…” But that would require that the BOP make individualized judgments, and God forbid a bureaucrat would have to make a judgment that could boomerang on him or her.

rachet200421By making any incident report in the last year disqualifying, the BOP places possession of a cellphone (a “107” infraction) on the same plane with grabbing an extra kiss from your spouse in the visiting room (a “409” infraction). By deciding that any prior crime of violence is disqualifying, the BOP equates rioting last year with throwing a punch at a bar 40 years ago. What’s worse, the BOP believes that possessing a gun during a drug offense – even if the gun was never handled or displayed – is a crime of violence.

It’s a great substitute for actually thinking, and it hardly represents considering “the totality of the circumstances,” but it makes things easy for BOP staff. At the same time, it  makes the likelihood of CARES Act home confinement for anyone other than a camper problematical. At FCI Elkton, only six inmates have been approved for home confinement, while 32 medically-eligible inmates have been denied. At Oakdale, of 68 inmates who are 65 years old or older, 75% are ineligible. Only six of the remaining inmates have gone to home confinement.

That 85-year old wheelchair-bound inmate who was convicted of a barroom assault back in 1956? Well, he can take his chances on COVID-19 inside…

WRAL-TV, Raleigh, N.C., Former inmate says Butner officials ‘slow-rolling’ prisoner releases during pandemic (Apr. 14)

WCTI-TV, New Bern, N.C., Ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen to serve out prison sentence at home (Apr. 17)

Houston Chronicle, ‘Crammed in’ and terminally ill: Prison officials drag their feet as vulnerable inmates seek release (Apr. 17)

Livas v. Myers, Case No. 20cv422 (WDLa), Declaration of Juan A. Segovia, filed Apr 16, 2020, Dkt 14-1

– Thomas L. Root

Reports Call Results of Bureau of Prisons’ COVID-19 Management “Tragic” – Update for April 20, 2020

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

COVID-19 CURVE NOT FLATTENING IN BOP

The Federal Bureau of Prisons is now in “Phase 6” of its plan to curb the spread of COVID-19 among its 172,000 inmates housed in 122 institutions. Phase 6 (the BOP prefers the Roman-numeraled “Phase VI” for reasons as obscure as the NFL’s use of such numerals for Super Bowls) looks an awful lot like Phase V… it just lasts longer. This Phase (and the lockdowns) will last until May 18, 2020.

covidcurve200420
Forbes magazine, BOP COVID-19 cases as of April 15, 2020

As Forbes magazine put it last Wednesday, “BOP’s efforts thus far have included halting social and legal visits since the middle of March, screening of inmates, staff and contractors by taking their temperature to measure infection, mobilizing administrative staff to step into front line positions, increase rate of hiring new corrections officers and halting staff training. The results have been tragic.”

As of Sunday night, there are 495 inmates (up 41% from last week) and 305 staff (up 61% from last week) ill with COVID-19 in 45 institutions (more than one-third of all BOP facilities). At least 22 inmates have died, the latest at FCI Terminal Island yesterday. Business Insider reported on Saturday that a BOP case manager from USP Atlanta died last week in her home of COVID-19.

The federal government’s COVID-19 strategy has been to “flatten the curve,” to spread out the spike in coronavirus cases so as not to overwhelm hospital capacity and resources. But, as Forbes notes, no

epidemiologists modeling the crisis ever envisioned the systemic failure that would expose 177,000 inmates housed in multiple institutional clusters, some numbering over 5,000 inmates, to a COVID-19 outbreak. These failures are resulting from a lack of a widespread testing protocol at institutions, the continued transfer of inmates between institutions, the introduction of new inmates who are either arrested or self-surrender and the thousands of staff and contractors that go in and out of these institutions.

The problem that has led to the continuing skyrocketing BOP COVID-19 cases is simple: the BOP has been unable or unwilling to test any inmates “except those who have died or are willing to risk fellow inmate retribution by revealing themselves to be symptomatic. Forbes reports that “more inmates are sick than the BOP is reporting and more inmates are not reporting that they are sick out of fear of being identified as sick.”

covidtest200420This is probably so. As of Sunday night, for example, FCI Elkton reported 50 inmates sick with COVID-19. But last Friday, the BOP admitted in federal court that Elkton has 207 suspected inmate COVID-19 cases, but only had ever received 80 test kits. It has used 37, leaving only 43 on hand. It expects to receive an additional 25 kits a week for the next several weeks. “We have very, very limited amounts of the testing kits,” Brandy Moore, secretary treasurer of the national union that represents correctional officers in federal prisons, was quoted as saying by Mother Jones magazine last week.

At FCC Terre Haute, Indiana, “we have between 2,500 and 3,000 inmates, and we were given four tests,” Steve Markle, another leader of the national union who works at the prison, told Mother Jones in late March. At FCI Oakdale, correctional officers were told to stop testing people and just assume that anyone with symptoms had been infected, according to Ronald Morris, president of the local union there — even though, as shown by the Arkansas state prison experience we cited last Wednesday, plenty of people can be asymptomatic.

statistics170104All of this, Mother Jones reported, “is to say that statistics reported by the Federal Bureau of Prisons are likely massive undercounts. “Our numbers are not going to be adequate because we’re not truly testing them,” Moore said.

Meanwhile, in a filing in the Eastern District of New York on April 9, the BOP admitted that “‘because of the shortage of tests, testing is currently reserved for those meeting’ certain criteria, including the kind of symptoms the inmate is facing, his potential exposure, whether he is high risk and whether he works in a high-contact role such as food service.” Through Thursday, April 16, the number of inmates tested at MCC New York and MDC Brooklyn has risen from 11 to 19. That is out of a combined population of over 2,300 inmates.

The ACLU has filed lawsuits in Louisiana against FCI Oakdale, Massachusetts against FMC Devens, and Ohio against FCI Elkton, seeking to compel release of more inmates because of the virus. “”Devens — one of only seven federal prison medical centers — is a powder keg of potential infection and death from COVID-19, to an even greater degree than nursing homes, cruise ships, and other prisons, sites of some of the most intense clusters of mortality in donegood200420Massachusetts, the United States, and elsewhere in the world,” the plaintiffs’ lawyers wrote in the District of Massachusetts complaint.

“We’re dealing with it just as well as anybody else,” BOP Director Michael Carvajal told CNN a week ago, “and I’d be proud to say we’re doing pretty good.”

Forbes, Federal Bureau of Prisons Institutions Not Showing Any Signs of “Flattening Curve” (Apr 15)

Business Insider, The Federal Bureau of Prisons has confirmed the first staff death linked to the coronavirus, report says (Apr 18)

Wilson v. Williams, Case No. 4:20cv794 (N.D.Ohio), Supplement to Respondents’ Answer, Dkt. 19, filed Apr 18, 2020

New York Law Journal, Brooklyn Federal Lockup Officials Describe ‘Shortage of Tests’ in Newly Filed Documents (Apr 15)

CNN, Exclusive: ‘I don’t think anybody was ready for this Covid,’ says head of federal prisons (Apr 10)

– Thomas L. Root