United States v. Moore

4 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Hale

    1:03 CR 11 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 2023)

    The Seventh Circuit has not directly addressed whether an increased risk of infection as a result of a prisoner's decision to decline vaccinations for religious reasons can establish extraordinary and compelling circumstances justifying compassionate release. Other district courts have generally concluded that such facts will not suffice. United States v. Crockett, No. 19-CR-86, 2022 WL 1186571, at *8 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 20, 2022); United States v. Malone, No. 12-CR-30330-DWD, 2022 WL 17738703, at *5 (S.D. Ill.Dec. 16, 2022); United States v. Norville, No. 10-CR-1046, 2021 WL 1731778, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2021); United States v. Moore, No. CR-15-50110, 2021 WL 3666319, at *3, (D. Ariz. Aug. 18, 2021); United States v. Weldon, No. 2:18-CR-112, 2021 WL 5041219, at *2 (D. Me. Oct. 29, 2021); United States v. Anderson, No. 2:16-CR-00305, 2021 WL 5985134, at *2 (D. Nev. Dec. 16, 2021) (“Anderson is choosing not to take that step, and he is free to make that decision. However, refusing vaccination because of religious belief does not weigh in favor of compassionate release.”)

  2. United States v. Edwards

    CR. 19-00038 JMS (02) (D. Haw. Dec. 28, 2022)

    As for refusing an available vaccine, district courts in the Ninth Circuit, including this District, have determined that “an inmate's refusal of a COVID-19 vaccination undercuts that inmate's assertion of extraordinary and compelling circumstances justifying compassionate release.” United States v. Nino, 2022 WL 19649, at * 4 (D. Haw. Jan. 3, 2022) (denying compassionate release to inmate who refused the COVID-19 vaccine due to his failure to fulfill his burden to justify compassionate release); see also, e.g., United States v. Moore, 2021 WL 3666319, at *3 (D. Ariz. Aug. 18, 2021) (disallowing the defendant “to create an increased risk to himself-and therefore try to conjure an ‘extraordinary and compelling' circumstance-by declining [the COVID-19 vaccine,] a readily available and overwhelmingly significant preventative measure”); United States v. Rennie, 2021 WL 5053286, at *2 (D. Or. Nov. 1, 2021) (“The Ninth Circuit, however, has made clear that pre-existing medical conditions that add an increased risk of complications from COVID-19 do not necessarily present ‘extraordinary and compelling' circumstances warranting compassionate release, even when a defendant is housed in a facility where inmates have tested positive for COVID-19.”)

  3. United States v. Coleman

    Criminal Action 5:16-067-DCR (E.D. Ky. Dec. 28, 2022)

    Specifically, he has neither identified his religious belief nor explained why it prevents him from being vaccinated. Under these circumstances, the defendant may not “conjure an extraordinary and compelling circumstance-by declining a readily available and overwhelmingly significant preventative measure.” United States v. Moore, 2021 WL 3666319, at *3 (D. Ariz. Aug. 18, 2021).

  4. United States v. Crockett

    No. 19-CR-86 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 20, 2022)   Cited 4 times

    See, e.g., United States v. Anderson, No. 2:16-cr-00305, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 240344, at *2 (D. Nev. Dec. 16, 2021) (“Anderson is choosing not to take that step, and he is free to make that decision. However, refusing vaccination because of religious belief does not weigh in favor of compassionate release.”); United States v. Weldon, No. 2:18-cr-112, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209380, at *3 (D. Me. Oct. 29, 2021) (holding that an inmate claiming a religious exemption “may be entitled to decline the vaccine, but his refusal does not give him an advantage in seeking early compassionate release”); United States v. Moore, No. CR-15-50110, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156028, at *8 (D. Ariz. Aug. 18, 2021) (“Whatever the reasons for his refusal, the Court will not allow Defendant to create an increased risk to himself-and therefore try to conjure an ‘extraordinary and compelling' circumstance-by declining a readily available and overwhelmingly significant preventative measure.”); United States v. Norville, No. 10 CR 1046, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84221, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2021) (“Nor is the Court persuaded that Norville's religious beliefs, which would compel him to decline vaccination were it offered, constitute extraordinary and compelling circumstances, at least in light of Norville's age and health. The Court understands that vaccination can allay many individuals' concerns about the risk of developing severe illness from COVID-19.”).