Summary
finding that being over 65 years of age did not establish extraordinary and compelling reasons that merit compassionate release despite increased risk of contracting COVID-19.
Summary of this case from United States v. GonzalezOpinion
Case No. 11-cr-00664-JSW-1
05-12-2020
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Ebrahim SHABUDIN, Defendant.
Adam A. Reeves, Kim Allison Berger, Robert David Rees, United States Attorneys Office Northern District of California, Julie Cybelle Reagin, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.
Adam A. Reeves, Kim Allison Berger, Robert David Rees, United States Attorneys Office Northern District of California, Julie Cybelle Reagin, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE AND RECOMMENDING TRANSFER TO HOME CONFINEMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 559
JEFFREY S. WHITE, United States District Judge Now before the Court for consideration is Defendant Ebrahim Shabudin's motion for compassionate release from custody pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3582 (" Section 3582"). The Court previously stayed this motion pending satisfaction of the exhaustion requirement of Section 3582. (Dkt. No. 567.) Thirty days have now elapsed since Shabudin submitted his request for compassionate release to the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"). Accordingly, the exhaustion requirement is satisfied, and the Court now has jurisdiction to consider the motion. The Court has considered the parties' papers, the supplemental briefs submitted by the parties, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion for compassionate release. The Court RECOMMENDS that the BOP place Shabudin on home confinement for the duration of the pandemic.
BACKGROUND
On March 31, 2020, Shabudin submitted a request to the warden at Taft Correctional Institution ("Taft") for release to home confinement based on Section 3582. Shabudin's request was denied on April 6, 2020, when Taft notified inmates that it would no longer address inmate requests for compassionate release. Shabudin filed this motion for compassionate release on April 2, 2020. The Court issued an order staying the motion pending satisfaction of the administrative exhaustion requirement. (Dkt. No. 567.) In that order, the Court directed the parties to file supplemental briefs with additional information regarding Shabudin's health and the status of COVID-19 at the facility where Shabudin is housed. (Id. ) The exhaustion requirement was satisfied on May 1, 2020, thirty days after Shabudin submitted his request to the Taft warden.
On March 26, 2020, the Attorney General issued a memorandum directing the BOP to prioritize placing eligible inmates with COVID-19 risk factors on home confinement. In accordance with that directive, the staff at Taft determined that Shabudin was eligible for immediate placement on home confinement. (See Dkt. No. 566-1, Spero Decl., Ex. B.) On April 13, 2020, Taft sent a referral to home confinement and supervised release plan for Shabudin to the BOP's Residential Reentry Manager. (Id. ) In response, the Residential Reentry office asked Taft to submit an updated request that conformed with the Attorney General's guidance. (Id. ) On April 17, 2020, before Taft resubmitted the referral request, Shabudin was transferred from Taft to FCI Mendota. The staff at Mendota has resubmitted the recommendation for Shabudin's home confinement. (Dkt. No. 569 at 7.)
ANALYSIS
Shabudin moves to be released from custody based on Section 3582(c)(1)(A). Under Section 3582(c), a court may modify a term of imprisonment on motion from a defendant if "the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant's behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant's facility, whichever is earlier." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Upon such motion, a court may modify a defendant's sentence "after considering the factors set forth in § 3553(a) to the extent applicable" if it finds "extraordinary and compelling reasons to warrant such a reduction" and "such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission." Id. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Section 3582(c) also permits a court to modify a term of imprisonment if, among other things, "the defendant is at least 70 years of age" and "has served at least 30 years in prison." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(ii). That subsection is not applicable here as Shabudin relies only on the "extraordinary and compelling reasons" prong set forth in Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). A defendant bears the burden to show special circumstances meeting the bar set by Congress and the Sentencing Commission for compassionate release to be granted. See United States v. Greenhut , No. 2:18-cr-00048-CAS-1, 2020 WL 509385, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2020) (citing United States v. Sprague , 135 F.3d 1301, 1306-07 (9th Cir. 1998) ).
A. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons.
Once a defendant has exhausted administrative remedies, a court may grant a motion for compassionate release if it finds that "extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant" a reduction and if the "reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). "Congress has not defined what constitutes ‘extraordinary and compelling’ except to state that "rehabilitation of the defendant alone’ " will not meet the standard. U.S. v. Rodriguez , 424 F. Supp. 3d 674, 681 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 994(t) ). Section 994(t) directs that the Sentencing Commission, "in promulgating general policy statements" relating to Section 3582(c)(1)(A), "shall describe what should be considered extraordinary and compelling reasons." 28 U.S.C. § 994(t).
The relevant Sentencing Commission policy statement is located at U.S.S.G. section 1B1.13, which sets out four "extraordinary and compelling reasons" that warrant a sentence reduction. The first three reasons pertain to the medical condition of the defendant, age of the defendant, and family circumstances. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, app. note 1(A)-(C). The fourth provision is a "catch-all" provision, which provides that "[a]s determined by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, there exists in the defendant's case an extraordinary and compelling reason other than, or in combination with, the reasons described in subdivisions (A) through (C)." Id. , app. note. 1(D).
Shabudin argues that he has demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release given his age, which places him at increased risk of becoming seriously ill from COVID-19. Shabudin submits prison medical records, which reflect that he has high cholesterol. In addition to the risk of age-related COVID-19 complications, Shabudin contends that his current facility, FCI Mendota, would be unable to care for him were he to fall ill. Finally, Shabudin asserts that because he is a non-violent offender with low risk of recidivism, the section 3553(a) sentencing factors weigh in favor of his release.
The Government argues that Shabudin's potentially heightened risk of contracting COVID-19 in prison is insufficient to show that he "is suffering from either a terminal illness or a ‘serious physical or mental condition...that substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to provide self-care with the environment of a correctional facility and from which he or she is not expected to recover,’ " particularly because Shabudin's facility does not have any confirmed cases of COVID-19. (Opp. at 12-13.) The Government also argues that the BOP has protocols in place designed to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission.
The Court finds that the present circumstances do not rise to the level of extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting release. The Court agrees that Shabudin's age is a concern given the increased risks associated with COVID-19 in those 65 and older. Apart from his age, however, Shabudin has not shown that he is experiencing a deterioration of his mental or physical health as a result of the aging process or his high cholesterol. See U.S.S.G. 1B1.13, app. note 1. Additionally, while the Court acknowledges Shabudin's worries about the spread of COVID-19 in prisons, the facility in which Shabudin is housed currently has no confirmed cases of COVID-19. Although "in certain situations a moderate illness, chronic condition, or advanced age in combination with the potential exposure to the COVID-19 virus at a specific location may present a significant risk of developing a ‘serious physical or medical condition,’ " the Court is not persuaded that those are the circumstances here. United States v. Oropeza Lopez , No. 115-cr-00051-NONE-SKO, 2020 WL 1923194, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2020) ; see also United States v. Eberhart , No. 13-cr-00313-PJH-1, 2020 WL 1450745, at *2 (N.D. Cal. March 25, 2020) ("General concerns about possible exposure to COVID-19 do not meet the criteria for extraordinary and compelling reasons for a reduction in sentence set forth in the Sentencing Commission's policy statement on compassionate release, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13.").
The Court has also considered the sentencing factors in section 3553(a). See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The Court notes that Shabudin does not presently appear to pose a threat to the public, and he does not present a high risk of recidivism. However, given that Shabudin has otherwise failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release, and in light of the BOP's recommendation that he serve the rest of his sentence on home confinement, the Court finds the section 3553(a) factors do not warrant a reduction in Shabudin's sentence.
B. Recommendation for Transfer to Home Confinement.
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the BOP was granted the authority to lengthen the maximum amount of time for which it is authorized to place a prisoner in home confinement under 18 U.S.C. section 3624(c). Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, Pub. L. 116-136, § 12003(b)(2), 134 Stat. 281, 516 (March 27, 2020). The Attorney General further directed the BOP to prioritize home confinement for eligible inmates for whom home confinement might be more effective in minimizing the risks of COVID-19. Off. of the Att'y Gen., Mem. for Dir. of Bureau of Prisons, Prioritization of Home Confinement as Appropriate in Response to COVID-19 Pandemic (March 26, 2020) https://www.justice.gov/coronavirus.
In Shabudin's case, it appears that the BOP has complied with the Attorney General's directive to prioritize home confinement for eligible inmates. Given Shabudin's age and vulnerability, the staff at Taft deemed Shabudin eligible for "immediate placement on home confinement." (Dkt. No. 570-1, Exhibit A at 3.) In light of this determination, the Government argues that the Court should refrain from ordering Shabudin's release based on Section 3582 and should instead allow the BOP to finalize Shabudin's release plan internally. The Court agrees. As discussed above, Shabudin has not met his burden to show that extraordinary and compelling reasons exist warranting his release. Regardless, the Court is reluctant to order Shabudin's release under Section 3582 when the BOP has already exercised its authority to determine the place of imprisonment in referring Shabudin to home confinement. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) ; see also Eberhart , 2020 WL 1450745 at *3 ("The Ninth Circuit recognizes that ‘[t]he Bureau of Prisons has the statutory authority to choose the locations where prisoners serve their sentence.’ ") (quoting United States v. Ceballos , 671 F.3d 852, 855 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam)). The BOP is better positioned than the Court to determine Shabudin's place of confinement at this time. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the BOP immediately transfer Shabudin to home confinement until the COVID-19 pandemic has subsided. The Court notes that although Taft determined that Shabudin was eligible for immediate home confinement a month ago, Shabudin is still in custody at a BOP facility. Therefore, the Court urges the BOP to finalize Shabudin's release plan for home confinement expeditiously.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court HEREBY DENIES Shabudin's motion for compassionate release and RECOMMENDS that the BOP immediately transfer Shabudin to home confinement. Further, the Court urges the BOP to act expeditiously in finalizing Shabudin's release plan. In light of Shabudin's age and the associated risks presented by COVID-19, the BOP should implement Shabudin's release plan without further delay. Counsel for the Government is ordered to serve this order on the warden at Shabudin's current facility.