November 30, 2012

II. Compassionate Release in Practice

Compassionate Release Procedures

Procedures may vary somewhat among different Bureau of Prisons facilities, but the basic compassionate release procedure is as follows. The prisoner, or someone on the prisoner’s behalf, makes a request to the warden for compassionate release, asking that the BOP file a motion to reduce his sentence. The governing BOP program statement, Program Statement 5050.46, requires that the prisoner both explain the circumstances he or she believes justify compassionate release and provide proposed release plans that indicate, for example, where the prisoner would reside, where the prisoner would receive medical treatment if needed, and how the prisoner would cover the costs of such treatment.[55] The BOP does not offer or require a special form for the request; ordinarily a prisoner will simply use what is known as the “cop out” form that is commonly used to make any request to staff.

Our communication with current and former prisoners suggests that there is confusion as to the eligibility requirements for compassionate release.[56] The BOP advised us that a copy of Program Statement 5050.46 is available to prisoners via the Electronic Law Library.[57] But that program statement only describes the procedures the BOP will follow; it does not provide any explanation of what the BOP might consider “extraordinary and compelling” reasons for compassionate release. It does not say the Bureau limits motions for sentence reduction to prisoners with terminal illness or other dire medical conditions or that the BOP takes into consideration various extraneous criteria such as public safety, severity of the crime, and community opinion. To the contrary, in the section that directs prisoners to include a release plan with their request for compassionate release, it requires additional information from prisoners whose request is for medical reasons.[58] Prisoners who are directed to the Program Statement can understandably operate under an illusion that the BOP grants compassionate release in non-medical cases.

The prisoner handbooks that each facility provides prisoners with are also of no help to prisoners exploring whether they might qualify for compassionate release consideration. We reviewed handbooks from 10 different randomly selected BOP facilities, and none of them contained any reference to compassionate release.

We asked the BOP if facility staff were responsible for alerting prisoners about compassionate release when they think the prisoner might be eligible. We were told, “staff [are] not tasked with the responsibility for initiating the RIS process. They are tasked with processing the RIS request in accordance with PS 5050.46.”[59] No Bureau staff are responsible for identifying a prisoner or even assisting one who might meet compassionate release criteria—even one who is terminally ill or medically incapacitated and thus unable to do so unaided.[60]

Even getting prison officials to accept a request can be difficult. In one case, a prisoner repeatedly tried to submit a request for compassionate release to the warden when she learned her husband, the only caregiver of their two young children, was dying. She was rebuffed time and time again for a variety of reasons, including that she did not present sufficient reasons, she was lying about her husband’s condition, and she used the wrong form. All in all, it took her 12 attempts made over a month-and-a-half before she was able to get a request to the warden.[61]

Once a request is submitted, the warden reviews the request and makes a decision as to whether it warrants approval. There is no hearing or other required procedure in which the prisoner can orally make a case for release directly to the warden. Although not required by the Program Statement, most federal prison medical centers (which receive the bulk of compassionate release requests) have a multi-disciplinary staff committee appointed by the warden that reviews prisoner requests and then makes a recommendation to the warden. The committee considers the prisoner’s medical or other circumstances prompting the request for sentence reduction, the prisoner’s criminal history and institutional record, and the prisoner’s proposed release plan. It then prepares a memorandum for the warden summarizing this information and providing its recommendation. At some point in the process, the US Probation Office takes steps to make sure the release plans are satisfactory, including sometimes visiting the place to which the prisoner would be released and talking with family. The office may also consult with other stakeholders in the community, such as victims who have asked to be notified.

If the warden decides the prisoner’s request warrants approval, he or she sends a referral packet of information to the appropriate BOP regional director.[62] If the request is approved by the regional director, he or she then sends it to BOP headquarters, where it is reviewed by the Bureau’s general counsel. If the general counsel decides a request is not medically warranted, he or she will deny the request.[63] The general counsel seeks the opinion of the BOP medical director if it is a medical case or that of the assistant director of the Correctional Programs Division if it is a non-medical case.

Although not required by the Program Statement, the general counsel also notifies the office of the US deputy attorney general regarding requests for sentence reduction that do not involve terminal illness and consults with the US attorney in the district in which the prisoner was sentenced to see if there are concerns regarding a sentence reduction. From January 1, 2011 to November 15, 2012, the BOP sent 11 non-terminal cases to the office of the deputy attorney general. A motion was filed for sentence reduction in all 11 cases.[64] The general counsel’s office may also contact other stakeholders it thinks might be concerned about the possible early release of an individual prisoner.

The general counsel sends to the BOP director all requests that he or she recommends be approved. The director makes the final decision on whether to approve the request. If the director agrees to seek a reduction in sentence, the general counsel’s office drafts the motion and asks the US attorney in the district in which the prisoner was sentenced to file it. In 2011, the district courts granted every motion submitted on behalf of the BOP.

When a prisoner’s request is based on a medical condition, staff at all levels are required by regulation “to expedite” the request,[65] but the BOP has not adopted specified time limits for compassionate release decisions. If the warden denies the prisoner’s request, the prisoner may appeal through the standard BOP administrative remedy process.

FMC Butner

Human Rights Watch visited the Federal Medical Center (FMC) at the Butner Federal Correctional Complex in Butner, North Carolina (FMC Butner), a medical facility for men and the BOP’s oncology center, on July 30, 2012. We talked with prisoners and staff who explained the process by which requests for medical release are handled at the facility.

When a prisoner makes a request based on medical grounds (as is usually the case), the prisoner’s primary care physician is asked to make a diagnosis and prognosis (how long the prisoner has to live, in the case of terminal illness). When the prisoner has cancer, the facility’s Tumor Board will make that diagnosis and prognosis. If the Tumor Board determines that the prisoner is medically eligible for sentence reduction (that is, he is within 12 months of death or physically incapacitated), a social worker consults with the prisoner regarding a plan for release. The prisoner’s medical condition and the release plan information are then discussed at a meeting of the seven-person interdisciplinary Reduction in Sentence Committee (RIS Committee) appointed by the warden to review prisoner compassionate release requests. During its review, the RIS Committee not only considers the prisoner’s medical condition but also the nature of the offense, impact on victims, conduct relevant to the offense, length of sentence imposed and served to date, family history, prior criminal history, and institutional adjustment.[66] Neither the committee nor individual members of the committee meet with the prisoner to discuss his past, his time in prison, his possible rehabilitation, or his likelihood of re-offending given his current condition. Nor do they solicit the views of the prisoner in writing or give him an opportunity to rebut or explain any concerns they might have.

The committee members discuss whether they think extraordinary and compelling reasons exist to warrant a sentence reduction, and then they vote. Judy Pyant, a social worker at FMC Butner who is also chair of the RIS Committee, told Human Right Watch that the committee members have never had any training or been shown any materials as to what constitute “extraordinary and compelling” reasons for compassionate release. The committee is not given rules or guidance from the warden or other senior BOP officials regarding how to assess the information presented to them or what specific questions they should attempt to answer before reaching a decision. Committee members do not necessarily have any experience in judging public safety risks or likelihood of recidivism, nor do they use a validated risk assessment instrument. They are left to deliberate uncharged and undirected, bringing their own subjective views and concerns to the table. According to Pyant, “extraordinary and compelling” can mean something different to each committee member.

Committee members vote by writing down their conclusion and a brief statement of their reasoning on a slip of paper. The majority vote wins and is reported to the warden in a memorandum that summarizes the prisoner’s medical situation, criminal history, and victim impact. It concludes with a sentence or two regarding the reasons the committee believes the prisoner should or should not be recommended for compassionate release. Minority views, if there are any, are not reflected in the memorandum.

The warden is not bound by the committee’s vote. Warden Sara Revell told us that she could agree with the committee’s recommendation for the same or completely different reasons from those suggested by the committee, and she did not need to explain her position. Memoranda we have seen denying prisoners’ requests for compassionate release consideration typically are drafted by the committee, and the warden writes “I concur” across the bottom (see appendix for examples of memoranda by the RIS Committee and signed by the warden). According to Warden Revell, she rarely disagreed with the committee when it voted that a prisoner’s request be approved, but she was more likely to do so when it voted against the prisoner’s request.

Compassionate Release: The Numbers

We do not know how many prisoners seek compassionate release, because the BOP Central Office does not maintain records of requests denied by wardens. It only maintains records of requests that were granted by wardens and hence—pursuant to BOP rules—subsequently reviewed in the Central Office, or of prisoners’ appeals to the Central Office of denials of administrative remedies by the warden or regional director.

The General Accounting Office (GAO) recently concluded that the BOP exercises its authority to seek a judicial reduction of prisoner’s sentence “infrequently.”[67] Between 2000 and 2011, the BOP’s Central Office reviewed 444 requests by prisoners for compassionate release that had been approved by wardens and regional directors and approved 266, or 60 percent.[68] Over 21 years, from 1992 through November 2012, the BOP made only 492 motions for compassionate release, an annual average of about two dozen.

In 2011, the BOP made 30 motions for sentence reduction, out of 38 requests received in the Central Office, filed by 37 prisoners (one filed a second request).[69] Thirty of the requests came from prisoners who were terminally ill; the BOP director approved 25 of them.[70] Five of the requests came from prisoners with medical conditions other than terminal illness, and the director approved all five. There were two cases appealed to the Central Office in which prisoners sought compassionate release for non-medical reasons.

Both were denied.[71] As of November 15, 2012, the BOP had made 37 motions for compassionate release, all on medical grounds.[72]

Not only is the number of motions for sentence reduction extraordinarily small given the size of the BOP population, but it has not grown commensurate with the growth in the number of federal prisoners. As shown in Figure 1, in 1994, the BOP housed 95,034 prisoners and made 23 motions for sentence reduction.[73] In 2011, even though the federal prison population had more than doubled to over 218,170, it made only 30 motions.

Figure 2: FMC Butner – Requests for Reduction in Sentence, 2011

This figure was prepared by the BOP. Data is for prisoners at the federal prison complex at Butner, North Carolina.

The BOP has provided us compassionate release data from 2011 for the federal prison complex at Butner, North Carolina, which includes a large federal medical center. While the Bureau does not track prisoner requests to wardens that are not approved or appealed, the Butner data provided to us included prisoner request numbers. This data highlights the vast difference between the number of prisoners who sought compassionate release and the number whose requests the BOP director ultimately approved.[74]During 2011, 164 prisoners initiated the reduction in sentence process by making a request to the warden. As shown in Figure 2, only 66 of them were considered in meetings by the Reduction in Sentence Committee, which reviews prisoner requests and makes recommendations to the warden; the remaining prisoners were deemed ineligible for consideration because they were “not medically warranted” (meaning they did not have a sufficiently terminal or grave medical condition), had detainers from other jurisdictions (which precludes motions for sentence reduction), or had died before the committee could consider them.

Figure 3: FMC Butner – Warden Decisions on Reduction in Sentence Requests, 2011

This figure was prepared by the BOP. Data is for prisoners at the federal prison complex at Butner, North Carolina.

As shown in Figure 3, of the 66 cases that were reviewed by the Reduction in Sentence Committee and then sent to the warden, the warden denied 12 on the grounds that early release might jeopardize public safety. The warden approved 15 of the remaining 54 requests and forwarded them to the regional director. Seventeen requests were pending a decision, and 22 prisoners died while awaiting the warden’s decision. [75]

Of the 15 requests the warden sent to the regional director, all were approved. The BOP director subsequently approved 12 of the 15 forwarded by the regional office; two were denied because they were “not medically appropriate for consideration,” and one prisoner was denied because he “posed a risk to the community.”[76]

In short, out of the 147 requests made by prisoners at FMC Butner in 2011 (not including the 17 in which decisions from the warden were still pending at the close of 2011), 12 were ultimately approved by the director as suitable for a motion for sentence reduction, where the prisoner had not died before that approval. Reflecting the gravity of their conditions, 22 prisoners who requested compassionate release in 2011 died while still behind bars.

Victor Elliott

Victor Elliott (pseudonym), age 47, entered federal prison on November 9, 2010 to serve a twenty-year mandatory minimum sentence for being part of a heroin distribution conspiracy that resulted in the deaths from overdose of three people. The conspiracy included Elliott, a former heroin addict himself, and two other people whose only connection was that they bought drugs for resale from the same wholesaler.[77] Elliot was directly responsible for the accidental overdose death of one person to whom he provided the drugs; he denies any involvement with the other dealers or the deaths of their clients. Currently confined at FMC Butner, Elliott has an inoperable malignant brain tumor—“the size of a golf ball”—which did not respond to chemotherapy and radiation. According to the Butner oncologist, Elliott has less than a year to live.[78] He also has two ruptured discs in his lower back, is confined to a wheelchair, has problems moving his left arm and leg, and suffers chronic severe headaches. He apparently spends much of the day asleep. He has a sister who is willing to act as his caretaker and who provided plans to ensure he received appropriate medical care.

Elliot sought compassionate release at the recommendation of his oncologist. Although he is close to illiterate, and “can’t spell worth a darn,” none of the staff helped him with his application. On January 12, 2012, the Reduction in Sentence Committee reviewed Elliott’s request. The committee’s memorandum recounts information contained in Elliott’s Presentence Investigation Report, including the overdose deaths of people caused by drugs they bought from Elliott’s “co-conspirators.” The committee also cited Elliott’s prior drug and battery convictions and details about other-drug related activities by Elliott. There is no discussion, however, about whether Elliott would be likely to rejoin the drug business given his brain cancer and confinement to a wheelchair or whether his expressed desire to spend his remaining months of life with his family and to make amends with his granddaughter is genuine. Although the committee acknowledged that Elliot had a poor medical prognosis, it concluded that his request should be denied because, “due to the severity of your crime and the fact that you have only served a small portion of your sentence, the committee expressed concerns about the possibility of your ability to re-offend.”[79] The warden concurred with the committee’s recommendation on January 19, 2012.[80]

[55] Bureau of Prisons, Program Statement 5050.46, “Compassionate Release; Procedures for Implementation of 18 U.S.C 3582 (c)(1)(A) & 4205(g),” May 19, 1998, http://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5050_046.pdf (accessed November 2, 2012). This overview of the process is drawn from the Program Statement as well as Human Rights Watch and Families Against Mandatory Minimums meetings with current and former BOP staff—including multiple conversations with the current general counsel—and prisoners. The Program Statement is included in the appendix.

[56]Human Rights Watch asked one former prisoner—who had succeeded in getting compassionate release—what the criteria were. His response: you have to be terminally ill, have had good conduct while in prison, and not have been convicted of a violent crime.” Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Charles Costanzo, June 7, 2012.

[57] See Bureau of Prisons, Reponses to Questions Submitted by Human Rights Watch, July 27, 2012, p. 5 (on file at Human Rights Watch and included in the appendix).

[58] The BOP Program Statement directs prisoners to provide information about where they will secure medical care. Bureau of Prisons, Program Statement 5050.46, Section 571.61(a)(2).The Program Statement also provides for different Central Office review procedures for requests depending on whether they are based on medical or non-medical grounds. Bureau of Prisons, Program Statement 5050.46, Section 571.62(a)(3).

[59] Bureau of Prisons, Reponses to Questions Submitted by Human Rights Watch, July 27, 2012, p. 6.

[60] Ibid. Nevertheless, Human Rights Watch did learn of cases in which staff, such as medical personnel or social workers, took the initiative to suggest to a prisoner that she begin the reduction in sentence process and then assisted her in doing so. Staff also may help prisoners pull together the material needed for a release plan.

[61] “Conversations with Staff About Compassionate Release,” Memorandum from Victoria Blain (pseudonym) to Mary Price, Vice President and General Counsel, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, September 20, 2012 (a detailed chronology of her efforts to submit her request for compassionate release) (reproduced in the appendix ).

[62] The warden’s referral should include, among other items, her written recommendation as well as recommendations by staff; copies of the Judgment and Commitment Order, Prisoner Progress Report, pertinent medical records, and Presentence Investigation Report; and confirmation that release plans have been approved by the appropriate US Probation Office. Bureau of Prisons, Program Statement 5050.46.

[63]See Bureau of Prisons, Reponses to Questions Submitted by Human Rights Watch, July 27, 2012, p. 5. The BOP’s responses do not say whether the general counsel may also deny non-medical cases.

[64] Information provided by James C. Wills, Associate General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, in an email to Human Rights Watch and Families Against Mandatory Minimums, November 16, 2012 (on file at Human Rights Watch and Families Against Mandatory Minimums).

[65] 28 C.F.R. 571.62(c).

[66] Most of this information comes from the Presentence Investigation Report, which is included in the prisoner’s central file. In most federal criminal cases, a US probation officer, governed by Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, conducts an investigation and writes a report that the sentencing judge will consider when imposing a sentence. This Presentence Investigation Report is supposed to draw on both the government’s and the defendant’s version of the offense and contain information on the offender’s family history, education, criminal background, employment record, substance-abuse history, medical condition, and financial status.

[67] US Government Accountability Office, “Bureau of Prisons: Eligibility and Capacity Impact Use of Flexibilities to Reduce Inmates’ Time in Prison,” Report to Congressional Requestors (“GAO February BOP Report”), GAO 12-320, February 2, 2012, http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/588284.pdf (accessed November 2, 2012).

[68] Bureau of Prisons data obtained by Margaret Love, a private attorney, and provided to Human Rights Watch, October 9, 2012 (on file at Human Rights Watch and Families Against Mandatory Minimums).

[69]See Bureau of Prisons, Reponses to Questions Submitted by Human Rights Watch, July 27, 2012, pp. 1-3. The BOP may well file more motions for sentence reduction in 2012 than it did in 2011. Between January 1 and October 11, 2012, it had already filed 30 motions. Email communication from Kathleen M. Kenney, Assistant Director and General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, US Department of Justice, to Human Rights Watch and Families Against Mandatory Minimums, October 11, 2012.

[70] The information that the BOP provided does not give grounds for denial of these cases.

[71] According to the BOP, one of these two cases was “denied because the circumstances were not extraordinary and compelling as expressed in the United States Sentencing Guidelines [§] 1B1.13.” This reference to the USSC guideline is curious, as we have not seen references to it in other statements by BOP officials denying (much less granting) requests for compassionate release. The other non-medical case was denied because the “prisoner’s history raised concerns about whether the prisoner could remain crime-free upon release.” Bureau of Prisons, Reponses to Questions Submitted by Human Rights Watch, July 27, 2012.

[72] Information provided by James C. Wills, Associate General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, in an email to Human Rights Watch and Families Against Mandatory Minimums, November 16, 2012 (on file at Human Rights Watch and Families Against Mandatory Minimums).

[73] Total number of federal prisoners obtained from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/fjsrc/var.cfm?ttype=one_variable&agency=BOP&db_type=Prisoners&saf=STK (accessed November 2, 2012).

[74]  Information on compassionate release at FMC Butner in 2011 was provided by James C. Wills, Associate General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, in an email to Human Rights Watch, August 28, 2012 (on file at Human Rights Watch and Families Against Mandatory Minimums).

[75] We did not know the outcome of the requests that were pending as of the end of calendar year 2011.

[76] Email communication from James C. Wills, Associate General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, to Human Rights Watch, August 28, 2012.

[77] Except as otherwise noted, the information about Victor Elliot came from correspondence between Human Rights Watch and Elliott (on file at Human Rights Watch) and our interview with him at the Federal Medical Center, Butner, North Carolina, July 30, 2012. All of the quotations from Elliot come from the interview.

[78] Human Rights Watch interviewed Dr. Andre Carden, Elliott’s oncologist, at the Federal Medical Center, Butner, North Carolina, July 30, 2012.

[79] Memorandum from Sara M. Revell, Complex Warden, FMC Butner, to Victor Elliot (pseudonym), January 12, 2012 (on file at Human Rights Watch).

[80] Ibid.