[Part 2 of 3] Inmates sue for CARES Act home confinement. “Here at Englewood we don’t offer any form of home confinement.”
Littleton, Colorado (D.A.S.) – According to recently filed lawsuits, multiple inmates at FCI Englewood’s Satellite Camp qualify for home confinement under the federal government’s CARES Act policy; but the local warden has apparently decided against granting any form of home confinement.
When Congress passed the CARES Act back in March 2022, it lifted the normal 6 month ceiling on home confinement terms for inmates. In what appears to be one of the most successful re-entry programs in federal prison history, of the 11,000+ low-risk federal inmates transferred to home confinement under this new provision, only 17 committed a new crime. This amounts to a .015 percent recidivism rate, when the national average has been above 30%. In May 2022, President Biden’s executive order issued on the second anniversary of the death of George Floyd emphasized the importance of utilizing measures like CARES Act home confinement for the health and success of the criminal justice system and society.
Despite all this, several new lawsuits filed in the federal district court for Colorado allege that Warden J.F. Williams at FCI Englewood decided earlier this year that his prison would stop approving these transfers.
POSSIBILITY OF INMATE LAWSUITS OVER CARES ACT
Inmates across the federal Bureau of Prisons have sometimes been mistakenly informed that they cannot file lawsuits ( § 2241 habeas corpus petitions) related to CARES Act home confinement denials. This is legally inaccurate. As pointed out in an early D.A.S. information update, FCI Englewood’s decision earlier this year to adopt a local institution policy against granting any form of home confinement has brought this issue to a head. Multiple inmates have brought just such lawsuits.
It is true that the federal BOP maintains discretion when it comes to deciding wether to transfer any prisoner – anywhere within its jurisdiction. This includes whether or not to place an inmate in home confinement. However, it has been long-settled that such decisions are not allowed unbridled discretion. Instead, Congress requires the BOP to make such decisions based on factors set forth in the law – not on arbitrary or categorical views of local administrators.
In the Tenth Circuit (FCI Englewood is in Colorado, which is the under the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals) this issue was settled back in 2007. In the case of Wedelstedt v. Wiley, 477 F.3d 1160, 1162 (10th Cir. 2007) the federal Court of Appeals rejected the BOP’s attempt to get around the law and clarified that prison staff must make any transfer decision by complying with the Congressionally mandated factors outlined at 18 U.S.C. §3621(b). Each decision must be individualized and based on, among other things, the unique circumstances of the particular inmate requesting transfer.
LOCAL POLICY AT FCI ENGLEWOOD: NO HOME CONFINEMENT
Contrary to the individualized consideration required by federal courts, inmates like Jason Schwarz at FCI Englewood have documented that the local Case Manager categorically informs inmates, “here at Englewood we don’t grant any form of home confinement.” See Schwarz v. Williams, Case No. 1:22-cv-002824-GPG (D. Colo), ECF #8 at p.22. According to several court filings, the local ward (Warden J.F. Williams) has supported this approach. Other inmates like Donald R. Foote, Jr., have described being fired from their prison jobs for attempting to bypass this new policy by using the BOP’s formal Administrative Remedy process to appeal the Case Manager’s approach towards home confinement. Foote was employed as the warden’s orderly, but within 30 days of filing his BP-9 (formal requests for administrative remedy) he was fired. See Foote v. Williams, Case No. 1:22-cv-002416-GPG (D. Colo), ECF #5 at p.29-30.
FCI Englewood Inmate Mark Godding reported that within the last month staff required him to let them actually tear up his BP-8 form complaining of the prison’s refusal to grant CARES Act home confinement consideration. The choice given to him by staff, according to a declaration filed in several of the cases, was to have his existing halfway house transfer date cancelled (where he could be closer to family) or give up his CARES Act complaint. See Garcia v. Williams, Case No. 1:22-cv-0002848 (D. Colo), ECF #1 at Ex. F p. 6-7.
“Mr. Goodman said, ‘we tear up the BP-8 and you get to leave’…Mr. Wilkinson then ceremoniously held the BP-8 above his head and ripped it in two.”
THE ENGLEWOOD LAWSUITS
In total, five inmate lawsuits each address this refusal of FCI Englewood staff to consider requests for home confinement (Second Chance Act and CARES Act). The inmates allege that the refusal is based on ideological and political views of staff and certain administrators. Since May 2022, CARES Act releases at FCI Englewood, have ground to a complete halt and Second Chance Act referrals are exclusively for RRC (halfway house) placement.
The inmate lawsuits detail how this categorical policy appears to contradict settled federal law that BOP staff have an affirmative obligation to give statutory consideration to all inmate request for transfer to home confinement – and are prohibited from making the kind of broad, sweeping, categorical denials happening at FCI Englewood. See e.g. Woodall v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 435 F.3d 235, 251 (3d Cir. 2005).
The inmates are not asking the federal court to order home confinement; instead they are asking the local court to require that Warden Williams give them the mandatory individualized consideration required whenever an inmate requests a transfer; including under the CARES Act. Other inmates at FCI Lompoc in California recently had their CARE Act class-action lawsuit settled favorably.
The lawsuits at FCI Englewood also raise the claim that the institution also sometimes denies home confinement based upon frivolous and bogus claims that inmates don’t meet a strict medical criteria. The inmates argue that CARES Act policy prioritizes COVID-19 vulnerability as a factor to determine which inmates should be considered first, but all inmates are nevertheless entitled to have their CARES Act home confinement transfer request considered, based upon 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b).
It’s too early to tell how the local federal court will respond to the lawsuits, but based upon the news over the last year, it seems that without court intervention it may be imprudent to expect local prison officials to comply with the law.
If you know of someone in the BOP who needs help with CARES Act or First Step Act issues; whether they are in the Administrative Remedy process stage, are looking to file with the court in a pro se petition, etc., you can tell them about this update. We are willing to discuss whether there is anything we can do to help.
Contact D.A.S. for help.
Phone: 800-489-8146
Email: info@defendantaidsociety.org
