Tag Archives: home confinement

Hoping the Caboose Stays Attached to the Train – Update for May 18, 2020

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

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TUCKS INMATE COVID-19 RELIEF INTO HEROES ACT

caboose200518The House passed the HEROES Act of 2020, a $3 trillion coronavirus-relief package, last Friday by a narrow 208-199 vote. The measure marks the Democrats’ starting point for talks with Republicans and the White House on the next round of stimulus. Fourteen House Democrats, many of whom were elected in 2018 from swing districts, voted against it. One Republican, Peter King (New York), voted for the bill.

Republicans are saying the bill, H.R. 6800, has no prospect of passing the GOP-led Senate. “It’s a parade of absurdities that can hardly be taken seriously,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as having said Thursday night. McConnell said he had spoken recently with President Trump, and that they agree another bill is probably necessary but that “it’s not going to be a $3 trillion left-wing wish list like the speaker is apparently going to try to jam down the throats of her majority.”

Why do I care (except that my bride and I could use another $2,400 check)? I care because tucked into the bill starting at page 1683 (§ 191101), is the so-called Pandemic Justice Response Act. That section makes clear that the House of Representatives is not terribly impressed with the Bureau of Prisons’ efforts so far to reduce its inmate population because of COVID-19.

The House is not alone. Last week, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut minced no words about the BOP’s exercise (nonfeasance would be a better term) of its CARES Act authority to send FCI Danbury inmates to home confinement:

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 implementation of this directive at FCI Danbury has been slow and inflexible. The Warden indicates that only 159 inmates have been reviewed since March 26, and a mere 21 inmates have actually been placed on home confinement, out of a population of roughly 1,000. Moreover, 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. Indeed, the most recent inmate bulletin regarding home confinement criteria does not even expressly mention health risks or how they will be evaluated… 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. Other criteria in the inmate bulletins are similarly unrelated to medical vulnerability and, at best, only tangentially related to public safety. For example, any inmate with an incident report in the past 12 months—no matter the seriousness—is deemed ineligible for home confinement, regardless of any health condition he or she might have. At oral argument, the Government suggested that such an inmate could seek compassionate release as an alternative. But that is a dead end at FCI Danbury: Of the 241 requests for compassionate release filed since the COVID-19 crisis began, the Warden has signed off on exactly 0.

drno200518The HEROES Act seeks to solve the BOP’s unfortunate predisposition to read any grant of statutory discretion to be the right to say “no, no and hell, no!” by providing that the Bureau shall (not may but shall) send to home confinement anyone who is 50 or over, is within 12 months of release, or has a list of COVID-19 risk conditions. Those include pregnancy, heart disease, asthma, diabetes, HIV, cancer, sickle-cell anemia, respiratory problems or immune system weaknesses. The only exception are people determined by clear and convincing evidence to pose a specific and substantial risk of bodily injury to or to use violent force against another person.

What’s more, courts would be required to reduce sentences for people unless the government can show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant poses a risk of “serious, imminent injury” to an identifiable person.

The Act also incorporates a reduction of the elderly offender home detention program sentence requirement (the subject of a separate bill that has already passed the House, H.R. 4018) to two-thirds of the sentence reduced by good time, instead of the current two-thirds of the whole sentence. This would make an elderly offender doing a 120-month sentence eligible for home confinement at 68 months rather than 80 months.

noplacelikehome200518Under CARES Act home confinement, all the BOP is doing is designating an inmate’s home as the place of imprisonment. Nothing prevents the BOP from redesignating an inmate on home confinement back to prison at the agency’s whim. The HEROES Act would prohibit reincarceration of people sent to home confinement for no better reason than the pandemic might be over.

The HEROES Act is an 1800-page train, leaving the Pandemic Justice Response Act to pretty much be the caboose. While everyone considers it likely some of the HEROES Act will be approved by the Senate, no one can be sure whether the caboose will still be attached to the train when the Act finally pulls into the station.

Wall Street Journal, House Narrowly Passes $3 Trillion Aid Package (May 16)

H.R. 6800, HEROES Act of 2020

– Thomas L. Root

It’s a Miracle! – Update for May 13, 2020

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

MIRACULOUS DOINGS AT THE BOP

Yesterday brought two miracles at the Bureau of Prisons, one physical and one legal.

Following a tour of FCI Terminal Island yesterday, 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, an amazing 79%!

It’s a miracle! In a mere 24 hours, 543 inmates suddenly recovered from COVID-19! The Lord Himself could hardly have done better.

And some people wonder why no one believes the BOP’s numbers…

lackfaith200513Meanwhile, on the other coast, a legal miracle: we learn that as least as far as the BOP is concerned, George Orwell was right – some animals really are more equal than others.

Three weeks after the BOP told hundreds of inmates who had been tapped for home confinement under the CARES Act that they would not be going home after all, because of a heretofore unannounced BOP policy that required an inmate to serve 50% of the full sentence prior to CARES Act approval, inmate Paul Manafort was sent to home confinement from FCI Loretto after serving less than a third of his sentence.

FCI Loretto, of course, is a hotbed of infection, with a total of zero COVID-19 cases so far. 

According to news reports, “prison officials have wide latitude when considering these releases on a case-by-case basis.” “Discretion,” of course, means that some guys with 54 months yet to serve on a 71-month sentence can be sent home from a place that doesn’t have any coronavirus.

Is this a great country or what? If you wonder, check with all of those vulnerable inmates who were denied home confinement from places like Butner, Elkton, Terminal Island, Fort Worth and Lompoc because they had only served 45% of their sentences…

BOP, Coronavirus Map (May 13, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

Beating Up The BOP Over CARES Act Home Confinement – Update for May 6, 2020

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

BOP TAKING IT ON THE CHIN OVER COVID-19 HOME CONFINEMENT MOVING TARGET

Hand in hand with criticism of the BOP’s COVID-19 management, courts and the media are blasting the Bureau’s bungling of its CARES Act home confinement authority.

punchinface180423For those of you who just came in, the CARES Act authorized the BOP to send inmates to home confinement during the COVID-19 emergency, in order to get inmates with medical vulnerabilities out of prisons ahead of the novel coronavirus pandemic.  Attorney General William Barr directed the BOP to act expeditiously, and laid out a series of standards by which the BOP should measure whether an inmate should be sent home.

The BOP applied the standards, and told a lot of people they would be going home. Then, in an abrupt about-face, the BOP decided that the AG’s standards weren’t enough. The Bureau retroactively applied a requirement that the inmate have completed 50% of his or her sentence in order to qualify for CARES Act home confinement, and told many of the people in pre-release quarantine that they would not be going to home confinement after all.

Then the DOJ said that the 50% standard wasn’t a standard at all, and then the BOP said, well, maybe not a standard, just a priority. And the shell game continued…

Last week, the BOP and DOJ were sharing the flak for the snafu.

Forbes noted, “Attorney General Barr gave some direction to the BOP and it dropped the ball. Individuals who were told they were being released from prison… have now been told they are staying put. This could have been avoided. The strain on the court system has been burdened with Compassionate Release motions that have wasted the time of judges, defense attorneys and prosecutors when all along the BOP could have acted to release vulnerable inmates. These resources, this personal pain, could have been avoided if the BOP just used its own policies.”

AP wrote, “The Bureau of Prisons has given contradictory and confusing guidance how it is deciding who is released to home confinement in an effort to combat the virus, changing requirements, setting up inmates for release and backing off and refusing to explain how it decides who gets out and when.”

shellgame200506NBC analyst and former US Attorney Glenn Kirschner last week blamed Barr. “Shifting and changing inmate release policies have caused widespread confusion. The lack of a clear, common-sense Justice Department/Bureau of Prisons policy prompted one federal judge to sternly rebuke the government, saying the procedures were ‘illogical’ and ‘kafkaesque…’ Simply put, the Bureau of Prisons flip-flops are yet another example of Barr’s lack of leadership and a sign of a Justice Department in free fall.”

In a lawsuit by inmates at the Federal Medical Center in Devens, Massachusetts, against BOP management of the COVID-19 pandemic there, the BOP explained to the court that some of the petitioning inmates were ineligible for CARES Act release under the BOP’s 50%-of-sentence standard. The petitioners shot back, “Although Respondents use words like “required criteria” and “ineligible” to describe their decision to bar so many people from being transferred to home confinement, they cannot defeat a claim of deliberate indifference by arguing they have tied their own hands with bureaucratic red tape. That is not a defense; it’s a confession.”

Forbes, The Federal Bureau Of Prisons’ “List” Has Caused Confusion in Courts and Prisons (April 24, 2020)

AP, Federal inmates battle mixed messages on home confinement (April 28, 2020)

NBC, Is Michael Cohen getting out of prison? Why Barr’s coronavirus release rules deserve scrutiny (April 28, 2020)

Petitioner’s Reply (Dkt. 38), Grinis v. Spaulding, Case No. 20cv10738 (filed April 27, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

BOP to Inmates: “Ooh, You Gotta Be Quicker Than That” on CARES Act Home Confinement – Update for April 28, 2020

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

HOME CONFINEMENT RE-EXPLAINED YET AGAIN

cheese20042wEveryone thought that Attorney General William Barr was pretty clear in his March 26 and April 3 memos directing the BOP’s standards for emergency home confinement under The CARES Act. But, as I reported last week, the BOP moved the cheese, deciding that in addition to the AG’s standards, it should add the requirement that an inmate have served half of his or her sentence to be eligible for immediate home confinement placement.

By the way, everything indicates that by 50%, the BOP means one-half of the ENTIRE sentence, not just half of the 85% that nine out of ten inmates actually serve.

After a thundering herd of inmates already in quarantine were told to move back because they were not going home after all, the Dept of Justice muddied the waters last Wednesday even more, saying there was no 50% requirement at all.

The ink on that Wall Street Journal story wasn’t dry before a U.S. Attorney filed a letter in a New York in case admitting that yes, maybe there is a 50% requirement after all.

Without fanfare (which is how the BOP likes to do things, often making the agency its own worst enemy), the BOP issued an internal memorandum last Wednesday, directing that in deciding an inmate’s eligibility for CARES Act home confinement, some things are deal-breakers and some are only “sort of” deal-breakers.

priority200428For example the PATTERN score above a minimum does not exactly disqualify someone, but an inmate with a higher PATTERN score will not receive “priority treatment.” Conveniently, “priority treatment” – which sound more like an airline upgrade than an objective standard for prisoner placement – is nowhere defined. This leaves the BOP staff to read the tea leaves, and to simply deny CARES Act home confinement placement to anyone not entitled to “priority.”

On the issue of the 50%-of-sentence standard, the memo says

In addition, and in order to prioritize its limited resources, BOP has generally prioritized for home confinement those inmates who served a certain portion of their sentences, or who only have a relatively short amount of time remaining on those sentences. While these priority factors are subject to deviation in the BOP’s discretion in certain circumstances and are subject to revision as the situation progresses, at this time, the BOP is prioritizing for consideration those inmates who either have served 50% or more of their sentences, or have 18 months or less remaining on their sentences and have served 25% or more of their sentences.

Nothing is anathema to a bureaucrat like being told that he or she should exercise “discretion,” when the result of not exercising discretion is guaranteed to avoid criticism from above. Like Jim Boren said, “when in doubt, mumble.”

Politico noted that “the new standard opens the door to such releases for prisoners who have served at least 25% of their sentences and who have less than 18 months remaining on their term… Inmate advocates said the effect of the change would be modest, permitting the release of about 200 additional prisoners serving relatively short federal sentences.”

The BOP’s moving-target home confinement standards have ill served both the Bureau and the Department of Justice (with exactly which agency is the primary culprit remaining unclear). The Washington Post reported that “the early release of about 200 federal inmates to home confinement amid the coronavirus pandemic abruptly stalled earlier this week as the Bureau of Prisons and the Justice Department issued shifting, contradictory guidelines, interviews and documents show.”

quicker200428Seeming especially heartless – as only a bureaucrat can be – a number of inmates who had been told they were going home (and whose families were in some cases on the way to the prisons to retrieve them) were removed from prerelease quarantine were returned to cells. The Post said Friday that DOJ is saying that “the inmates will indeed be released, though others like them might face a harder time going forward,” although as of Tuesday morning, there is no indication that this is the case.

Even the judiciary is getting exasperated. U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams, seemingly frustrated with DOJ’s “ever-changing guidelines” to the BOP, last Friday ordered the immediate release of an inmate who had a high risk of contracting COVID-19 from FCI Danbury, which had yet to transfer her to home confinement as promised.

Law360 reported that Judge Abrams said the DOJ’s shifting guidance to the BOP regarding home confinement and compassionate release has eroded her confidence that inmate Haena Park would be released on April 30 as scheduled.

Politico, Feds again shift guidance on prisoner releases due to coronavirus (April 23, 2020)

BOP, Home Confinement (April 22, 2020)

Law360.com, Fraudster Freed As Judge Slams ‘Ever-Changing’ DOJ Advice (April 27, 2020)

Washington Post, Amid coronavirus pandemic, federal inmates get mixed signals about home-confinement releases (April 24, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

BOP Does Not Apply 50% Standard to Home Confinement… Except When It Does – Update for April 24, 2020

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

ARE WE STRAIGHT ON THIS?

Seems like it was only a few days ago that BOP staffers were wandering through quarantine units, telling inmates who had been told that they were a few days from leaving to do the rest of their sentences in home confinement that, “oops, guess we’re wrong, you haven’t done 50% of your sentence yet, so you’re going nowhere.”

flipflop170920The sudden flip-flop in policy, engrafting a new restriction to the criteria for CARES Act home confinement, was cited last Monday in a filing in a Southern District of New York compassionate leave proceeding. The U.S. Attorney, having told the court a few days before that the defendant, Lewis Stahl, was eligible for CARES Act placement, withdrew the advice, telling the court that a new Dept. of Justice directive to the BOP prohibited home confinement placement to anyone who had not served at least 50% of his or her sentence.

Judge Ronnie Abrams was not amused. He promptly entered an order:

The Court is in receipt of the Government’s letter indicating that, in light of “new guidance” just issued to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) by the Department of Justice (DOJ), the BOP now anticipates that Mr. Stahl is no longer eligible for home confinement or a furlough. Given the fact that the Government previously informed the Court that the BOP had already approved Mr. Stahl’s request for home confinement, and the U.S. Probation Offices in both the Southern District of New York and the Southern District of Florida had already approved his relocation request, the Government is hereby directed to provide the Court with an explanation from the BOP, including by way of affidavit from the appropriate representative, as to how the new DOJ guidance can affect these prior decisions. The Government shall do so no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 22, 2020. The Government shall also file a copy of the new DOJ guidance on the docket by that time. If it still does not have a copy of the new DOJ guidance by 5:00 p.m. on April 22nd, it shall provide the Court with additional details about the guidance including when it went into effect and who it applies to, as well as when it will be submitted to the Court.

On Wednesday, a BOP employee at FMC Devens echoed the government’s claim that an inmate must have served 50% or more of his or her sentence in order to qualify for home confinement placement under the CARES Act, in a declaration filed by the government in a Massachusetts case seeking an injunction to release inmates from the Federal Medical Center due to COVID-19.

confusion200424The government did not get around to responding to Judge Abrams until late yesterday. Before that, the Wall Street Journal reported in the morning that a DOJ spokesman had said on Wednesday “that federal prison officials could consider inmates for early release even if they haven’t yet served half of their sentences, clarifying a shifting policy that has sown confusion across the nation’s prisons and courts in recent days.”

The Journal reported that “Dozens of inmates who had been granted early release as part of an effort to stem the spread of the coronavirus were told this week they hadn’t served enough time to qualify, according to prisoners and court filings. Inmates, prosecutors and federal judges demanded prison officials explain their rules and criteria for releasing inmates during the pandemic.

The DOJ spokesman reportedly said the BOP “intends to expeditiously transfer all inmates to home confinement who were previously referred” for placement, “as long as such transfers aren’t forbidden by law or criteria set forth by Attorney General William Barr. More prisoners are approved for home confinement every day, the spokesman said.”

OK, you have it so far. The 50% standard did not apply, then it did apply, and now it does not apply again.

Then, last night at 5 pm, the U.S. Attorney in the New York case filed a rambling, boilerplate-laden declaration of an FCI Miami associate warden that nowhere directly answered Judge Abrams’ questions. But it did provide this interesting explanation of the BOP home confinement criteria:

[T]he BOP is currently assessing a number of factors to ensure that an inmate is suitable for home confinement including, but not limited to, reviewing the inmate’s institutional discipline history for the last twelve months; ensuring that the inmate has a verifiable release plan; verifying that the inmate’s primary offense is not violent, a sex offense, or terrorism related; and confirming the inmate does not have a current detainer…

[I]n order to prioritize its limited resources, BOP has generally prioritized for home confinement those inmates who have served a certain portion of their sentences, or who have only a relatively short amount of time remaining in those sentences. While these priority factors are subject to deviation in BOP’s discretion in certain circumstances and are subject to revision as the situation progresses, BOP is at this time prioritizing for consideration those inmates who either (1) have served 50% or more of their sentences, or (2) have 18 months or less remaining in their sentences and have served 25% or more of their sentences. As BOP processes the inmates eligible for home confinement under these criteria and learns more about the COVID-19 pandemic and its effect on BOP facilities, it is assessing whether and how to otherwise prioritize consideration.

spincycle200424It is now crystal clear: the 50% standard did not apply until last Monday, at which time it did apply until Wednesday, after which time it did not apply until yesterday, at which time it sort of applies (50% plus people are “prioritized,” whatever that means to the BOP).

At least all of that is resolved.

The Wall Street Journal, Confusion Hampers Coronavirus-Driven Inmate Releases (Apr. 23)

United States v. Stahl, Case No. 18 Cr. 694 (SDNY), Declaration attached to letter filed by U.S. Attorney (April 23, 2020)

Grinis v. Spaulding, Case No. 1:20cv10738 (D.Mass.), Declaration attached to Respondents’ Omnibus Response, Dkt.32-2 (filed Apr. 22, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

DOJ Moves the Cheese on Home Confinement – Update for April 22, 2020

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

DEPT OF JUSTICE (NOT THE BOP) MOVES THE CHEESE ON CARES ACT HOME CONFINEMENT

The authority granted to the Federal Bureau of Prisons to designate home confinement for prisoners during the COVID-19 pandemic took another hit yesterday, in an especially callous announcement of additional restrictions that literally stopped some prisoners as they were about to get into cars to return home.

cheese20042wIn an affidavit filed in a Louisiana case against FCI Oakdale earlier this month, an associate warden from that facility reported that the BOP was considering inmates for placement in home confinement without regard to the amount of sentence the inmate had served. Last week, in an undated internal guidance memorandum, the BOP directed staff that if the inmate otherwise met the home confinement criteria, other factors – including the “percentage of time served” – “should be noted, but are not a reason for denial.”

However, as Politico reported last night, BOP staff told inmates in various prisons who had been put into prerelease quarantine almost two weeks ago that the policy had changed. Now, an inmate must have completed 50% of his or her sentence to be eligible for CARES Act home confinement.

FAMM immediately sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr, blasting the BOP for its “downright cruelty.” FAMM president Kevin Ring wrote that for families of inmates “to have the promise of early release snatched away under these circumstances is simply inexcusable. They deserve to know what is happening. Even before yesterday’s outrageous bait-and-switch, we were growing concerned with the BOP’s response to this crisis. We have received numerous reports about case managers and counselors giving incorrect information and contradictory answers to people exploring early release options…”

It turns out, however, that the wrong actor may be getting the blame. In a letter filed in an inmate’s compassionate release motion proceeding on Monday, the U.S. Attorney corrected the government’s previous advice to the court that the inmate was eligible for CARES Act consideration:

The Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) advised the Government this afternoon that the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has just issued new guidance to the BOP requiring that an inmate serve at least fifty percent of his or her sentence in order to be eligible for placement on home confinement. Based on the new guidance, the BOP anticipates that Stahl, who has served approximately 23% of his sentence, will not be eligible for home-confinement placement at this time. With respect to Stahl’s application for compassionate release, the BOP has advised that Stahl’s application, which the BOP received on April 3, remains under review and the BOP anticipates reaching a decision on it prior to the expiration of the 30-day period set forth in Section 3582(c)(1)(A).

In a footnote, the government admitted that it “has not yet seen a copy of the new DOJ guidance, but the U.S. Attorney’s Office was advised of it by the BOP today in other cases as well.”

So the culprit is Barr’s DOJ in this one, not the BOP. Assigning blame hardly matters to the hundreds of inmates affected by the sudden change, just as it hardly means that there isn’t plenty of other blame to spread around.

movingtarget200422Yesterday, Forbes magazine blasted the BOP for its muddled handling of the CARES Act home confinement program, complaining that “inmates around the country have been informed by case managers at each facility about the existence of a ‘list’ of inmates that could be sent home to some sort of Home Confinement to complete their prison term. However, the parameters of that ‘list’ and who is eligible has been something of a mystery as have the rumors of mass release of inmates across the country… it just has not happened.”

Forbes noted that one such rumor, that everyone at FCI Otisville camp was going to home confinement, was debunked by a BOP statement:

We would like to clarify the rumor that has recently been circulating about the purported closure of satellite camp at FCI Otisville. This information is not true. The majority of inmates at the satellite camp at FCI Otisville began transferring into the main institution (a medium security facility) … Many of these inmates are minimum security and minimum risk of recidivism, which are qualifications under the Attorney General’s guidance to BOP. Staff at Otisville are currently reviewing all inmates for their suitability for home confinement or furlough. Some of these inmates may not ultimately qualify but by proactively moving the inmates into quarantine now, eligible inmates will be able to release form the institution sooner.

Forbes concluded that “If you are not confused, you should be!” Yes, confused and disheartened. But the blame for moving the 50%-completion cheese apparently lies with DOJ, not BOP.

Politico, Trump administration reverses prisoner coronavirus release policy, advocates say (April 21, 2020)

FAMM, Letter to Attorney General William Barr (April 21, 2020)

United States v. Stahl, Case No. 18 Cr. 694 (SDNY), Letter filed by US Attorney (April 20, 2020)

Forbes, Lack Of Direction From Bureau Of Prisons Showing In Federal Court (Apr 21)

– Thomas L. Root

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

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

BOP Relaxes COVID-19 Home Confinement Standard – Update for April 14, 2020

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

BOP LOOSENING CARES ACT HOME CONFINEMENT STANDARDS

An affidavit filed last Friday in a class-action lawsuit against the BOP seeking the release of hundreds of high-risk inmates at FCI Oakdale suggests that standards governing which high-risk inmates can go home may be loosening.

release161117The American Civil Liberties Union sued the BOP in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana a week ago, claiming the Dept of Justice did not go far enough in a directive issued by Attorney General William Barr to begin releasing vulnerable prisoners to home confinement.

In a filing last Friday, the BOP said it was using seven criteria to place inmates in home confinement under the authority granted to it by Section 12003(b)(2) of The CARES Act: 1) The primary offense is not violent, sex offense or terrorism; 2) the inmate has no detainer; 3) mental health care level is less than IV; 4) the inmate’s PATTERN score is minimum; 5) BRAVO (BOP’s existing risk evaluation tool) score is low or minimum; 6) the inmate has completed at least 50% of sentence; and 7) no disciplinary actions within the past 12 months.

However, the FCI Oakdale Associate Warden said in the affidavit last Thursday that the requirement that the inmate have completed half of his sentence in order to qualify has been dropped. The AW also said that he expected that “the institution may consider expanding the criteria for review” even further.

The affidavit noted that the most common reasons for ineligibility appear to be history of previous violence or sex offenses.

Placement in home confinement, once approved, still requires the release plan be evaluated by the US Probation Office. “In order to facilitate faster removal of approved inmates from the prison facility,” the AW said, “the BOP has provided its Wardens with additional guidance allowing the use of non-transfer furloughs up to 30 days in length in specific circumstances. As inmates are approved for home confinement through the above-described review process, they may also be considered for such a furlough if they meet the criteria.”

prisonhealth200313Meanwhile, as more is being learned about COVID-19, medical conditions that were once considered irrelevant are being reconsidered. The CDC reported last week that hypertension, previously discounted as a risk factor, and obesity “were the most common comorbidities seen in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.” The study found that 50% of the COVID-19 hospitalizations studied while 48% had obesity, about 35% reported chronic lung conditions such as asthma, and diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease were seen in 28%.

Notably, the report said, of 580 patients with available race/ethnicity data, 45% were non-Hispanic white, while 33% were non-Hispanic black. A CDC doctor who worked on the study said this suggests “black populations might be disproportionately affected by COVID-19.”

Washington Post, ACLU seeks release of federal prison inmates where 5 died (Apr 6)

Bureau of Prisons, BOP’S COVID-19 INMATE REVIEW UPDATE (filed in Case No. 2:20cv422 (WD La., Apr. 10, 2020)

Medpage, Hypertension, Obesity Common in U.S. COVID-19 Hospitalizations (Apr 8)

Politico, Virus-wracked federal prisons again expand release criteria (Apr 11)

– Thomas L. Root

COVID-19 Numbers Rise, BOP Scrambles – Update for April 13, 2020

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

THE WEEK IN COVID-19

corona200313A little over two weeks ago, Attorney General William Barr announced that “total of six inmates and four prison staffers have tested positive for COVID-19.” Last week, BOP admitted to 138 inmates and 59 staff sick (with eight fatalities). As of Sunday evening, April 12, the BOP’s updated numbers report 352 federal inmates and 189 federal prison staffers had tested positive.

Two more inmates have died. A 76-year old Oakdale prisoner, died of COVID-19 on Friday, and an 81-year old Butner I prisoner died on Saturday. The total now is ten.

The BOP is reporting that there are now 40 different federal facilities (and nine halfway houses) with positive COVID cases, up from 21 only a week ago.

At the same time, the BOP is moving to send the first wave of vulnerable inmates to home confinement under The CARES Act. A BOP release last week asserted that since Barr issued the March 26 memo “instructing us to prioritize home confinement as an appropriate response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the BOP has placed an additional 886 inmates on home confinement.”

There is substantial basis for taking the BOP’s numbers with a grain of salt. The agency’s COVID-19 resource page updates its numbers daily, but it notes that the numbers include only inmates and staff “who have confirmed positive test results for COVID-19.” The problem is that testing appears not be getting done, and you can count what you don’t test.

testing200413Ten days ago, the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York ordered the wardens at MCC New York and MDC Brooklyn to file twice-weekly reports with the court on the status of COVID-19 testing at the facilities. In a report filed last Friday, the wardens admitted that only 17 inmates (out of a combined population of nearly 2,500) had been tested. Only five tests had been done in the last week.

Seven of those inmates have tested positive for COVID-19, according to the report.

David Patton, Federal Defenders’ executive director, said the number of officially confirmed cases does not comport with reports he’s hearing from incarcerated clients about the apparent spread of COVID-19. “It’s hard for me to quantify how much more robust the testing ought to be, but we certainly receive a lot of reports from clients about people in their units who seem to be quite symptomatic,” Patton said.

At FCI Elkton, the BOP is reporting that only 13 inmates and 14 staff members have tested positive, Joseph Mayle, president of union representing many of Elkton COs, told a Youngstown, Ohio, TV station last Thursday that 67 inmates have either tested positive or are showing symptoms of the virus and that the entire inmate population is being isolated. Plus, he said, 44 inmates have been hospitalized, with 14 on ventilators. Twelve staff members, not the official count of nine, have tested positive, according to Mayle.

pinocchio200413At FCI Danbury, the BOP reported a week ago that fewer than a dozen inmates and only six staff members at the prison had tested positive. On the same day, the Hartford Courant newspaper reported that “inmates claim the number is higher. ‘I am well for now,” an inmate told the Courant on April 2. “It’s ripping through here like crazy. I just got back from medical. I don’t have symptoms. But they have many confirmed cases here. That’s according to medical.”

Sure enough, as of Easter Sunday, the Danbury count had tripled to 37 inmates and 30 staff with COVID-19.

Beyond questions about the accuracy of the BOP’s numbers are complaints about quarantines. In some instances, according to Politico, inmates being quarantined before being sent to home confinement are housed near prisoners being isolated because they’re suspected of having the virus. Politico says that wives of inmates at FCI Cumberland told it the facility is using the facility’s special housing unit – single- or two-person cells where inmates remain locked down for 23 hours daily – to hold both categories of prisoners. “They’re quarantining these healthy inmates with sick inmates that are already down there,” said Angela Sanks, whose husband, Collie, was due out in 2022 and was taken to the SHU for potential release several days ago.

The spouse of an Elkton inmate said her husband, who’s due out of prison in August of next year, was one of 56 inmates whose names were called a week ago to report for quarantine so they could be sent on home confinement. “They were all told: you’re going home,” she said. But on Wednesday, 54 of the men were sent back to their cells. “They told them, sorry, you’re not going anywhere, because they’d approved only two of them to leave.”

pantsonfire160805At MDC Brooklyn, a union official accused officials of transferring inmates with COVID-19 out of quarantine and back into general population only days after they’ve tested positive. BOP officials did not respond to questions about the allegation, according to The Intercept, but the charge was then raised in a court filing by federal public defenders. If the allegation is accurate, it would “call the credibility of the BOP’s representations about the practices at MDC Brooklyn into serious question,” lawyers with the Federal Defenders of New York wrote in a letter to the judge, saying it would “speak to the risk to all the inmates from such practices that are contrary to the CDC’s advice, and in particular the risk to vulnerable inmates.”

In a video address to staff last Friday, BOP Director Michael Carvajal reported that the agency has adequate supplies of personal protective equipment, and was a priority recipient for COVID-19 test kits. He acknowledged that the Centers for Disease Control inspected FCC Forrest City last week, and has been advising FCI Oakdale staff. The Central Office has sent 45 additional COs and a medical support team to Oakdale, and has accepted help from the Ohio National Guard and Army Corps of Engineers at Elkton.

Carvajal said 10 UNICOR factories have pivoted to the manufacturing of masks, nonsurgical gowns, shields, blankets and linens, emergency water and milk supplies and hand sanitizers. He also reported that inmate movement has been cut by 80%, but that there would always be some transfers due to court order.

Georgetown University assistant law professor Shon Hopwood, wrote last week in The Appeal that no one should “look to the DOJ to release enough people to make prisons and their surrounding communities safe.”

proactive200413

“They are always and always have been reactive instead of proactive,” Elkton union official Mayle said.

Sentencing Law and Policy, Latest BOP numbers reveal continued increases COVID-19 cases among federal facilities, inmates and staff (and more releases to home confinement) (Apr. 10)

BOP, Inmate Death at FCI Oakdale I (Apr 10)

BOP, Inmate Death at Butner I (Apr 12)

Law.com, No Coronavirus Tests Since Friday at New York City’s Federal Lockups, Mandated Report Reveals (Apr 7)

Bureau of Prisons, Letter filed in response to Administrative Order 2020-14 (EDNY Apr 9)

Cleveland Scene, The Latest out of Elkton Federal Prison, Where Horror Show Continues Apace (Apr 10)

Hartford Courant, With 20 testing positive for coronavirus, Danbury federal prison ordered to release high-risk inmates to home confinement (Apr 4)

Politico, U.S. prisons’ virus-related release policies prompt confusion
(Apr. 10)

The Intercept, Internal Prison Guard Email Contradicts Government’s Claims To Judges About Containing Coronavirus At Federal Detention Center (Apr. 10)

COVID-19 Video Update: April 10, 2020

The Appeal, Don’t Look To The DOJ To Keep Federal Prisons And Their Surrounding Communities Safe During The Covid-19 Pandemic (Apr 8)

– Thomas L. Root

BOP Updates Home Confinement Policy To Catch Up With First Step – Update for April 8, 2020

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

BOP ISSUES NEW HOME CONFINEMENT PROGRAM STATEMENT

The BOP finally and officially has directed its staff to issue maximum home confinement (10% of sentence up to a max of 6 months, under 18 USC 3624[c][2]). This, of course, was something the BOP was told to do almost 16 months ago by the First Step Act.

home190109Section 602 of the Act amended 18 USC 3624(c)(2) – which authorizes home confinement for prisoners at the end of their sentences for a period not to exceed the lesser of 10% of their sentences or 6 months – to add that “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.”

The need to add the provision is inexplicable. Home confinement, overseen by the U.S. Probation Office for the BOP, costs about $8.00 a day, compared with imprisonment ($102.60 a day) or halfway house ($94.50 a day).  One would think that home confinement would be the first option a BOP case manager would be directed to consider, given the BOP’s chronic shortage of budget and personnel. It’s as close to a win-win as you can get.

But one would be wrong. The BOP has always been focused on halfway house, with the halfway houses then moving its inmates to home confinement as they got to the 10%/six-month eligibility period.

winwin200408Even after passage of the Act, the BOP used the delay in adoption of the PATTERN risk and needs assessment protocol as a basis for not maximizing home confinement. After all, the argument went, no one knows if someone falls into the “lower risk levels and lower needs” category without a PATTERN analysis.

Now that PATTERN is adopted, the BOP is out of excuses.

The April 3rd directive says the BOP interprets Section 602 “to refer to inmates that have lower risks of reoffending in the community, and reentry needs that can be addressed without RRC placement. The Bureau currently utilizes home confinement for these inmates.
Accordingly, staff should refer eligible inmates for the maximum amount of time permitted under the statutory requirements.”

Of course, the BOP’s adherence to First Step’s directive, like the rest of 18 USC § 3624, is exempted from judicial review by 18 USC § 3625. So there is no policing mechanism other than Congressional oversight to ensure that the BOP does what is undeniably in the agency’s own best interest.

Operations Memorandum 001-2020, Home Confinement Under the First Step Act (Apr. 3, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root