Skip to main content
Social Media
  • twitter
  • linkedin
Home
  • About the project
    • About the project
    • Partnerships and Collaborators
    • Coordination Unit
    • Project Management Team
    • International Network of Judges and Legal Scholars
    • Research assistants
  • Case Law Database
    • Case index
    • Database charts
  • News
    • News and announcements
    • Press newsroom
  • Resources
    • Working papers and other resources
    • Media kit
  • Contacts
Back to the previous page

United States of America, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, 28 March 2022, No. 18-578-01 (KM)‎

Case overview

Share
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • envelope
  • print
Country
United States of America
Case ID
No. 18-578-01 (KM)‎
Decision date
28 March 2022
Deciding body (English)
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
Criminal Court
Type of jurisdiction
Single jurisdiction system
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Local Court
Instance
1st Instance
Area
Health law, detention and prison law
Vulnerability groups
Inmates
Outcome of the decision
Claim inadmissible or rejected

Case analisys

General Summary

The Defendant, an inmate at FCI Fort Dix, was serving a 15-year ‎sentence for drug trafficking. He was moved for compassionate ‎release pursuant to the First Step Act, which primarily cited the ‎COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting danger to himself while ‎incarcerated. ‎

He argued ‎ that the COVID measures had curtailed certain ‎incentive-based programs, through which he could shorten his ‎sentence. The Court reasoned that once a term of imprisonment ‎had been imposed, the Court may modify it only under very ‎limited circumstances. It concluded that the Defendant was at ‎no extraordinary risk, refused to be vaccinated against COVID, ‎infection rates were currently zero at his institution, and that ‎incentive programs had been limited but were not eliminated. ‎Therefore, the Court denied the motion. ‎

Facts of the case

The Defendant was the head of a drug trafficking organization and ‎pleaded guilty to allegations that he had conspired to distribute ‎and possess, with the intent to distribute, at least one kilogram of ‎heroin, 28 grams of cocaine base, and 40 grams of fentanyl, and to ‎possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was sentenced to an ‎imprisonment of 300 months and his estimated date of release was ‎March 17, 2030.‎

He was approximately 43 years old and will be well under age 65 ‎at his estimated release date. Possible risk factors suggested by ‎health records were obesity and hypertension. The r ecords ‎demonstrated that the defendant had been receiving regular, ‎appropriate medical care.‎

The Defendant was offered the Moderna vaccine in March 2021 ‎and was again offered the Pfizer vaccine in August 2021. On both ‎occasions he refused to be vaccinated. ‎

Type of measure challenged
Local government measure
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Injunctive relief
Individual / collective enforcement
Individual action brought by one or more individuals or legal persons exclusively in their own interest.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Public
  • Defendant(s)
    Private individual
Type of procedure
Urgency
Reasoning of the deciding body

The Court analyzed the request for compassionate release and ‎reasoned that in order to succeed the Defendant must meet the ‎exhaustion requirement, which requires either that the defendant has ‎exhausted all administrative remedies, or that, since the submission ‎of a request to the warden, 30 days had passed without a decision ‎being rendered. The Defendant stated that he had made an ‎administrative request for relief in May, 2021. Records obtained by ‎the government did not reflect any such request and the Defendant ‎did not make a reply to the government's argument. For this ‎reason alone, the Court argued that relief must be denied.‎

The Court also stated that any assessment of extraordinary ‎circumstances arising from the COVID-19 pandemic must include: ‎a) the likelihood that a COVID infection would have severe ‎consequences for the particular person; and b) the more general ‎danger of infection at the institution where the person was ‎incarcerated. The Court reasoned that the chronic health ‎conditions the Defendant presented were common and not at all ‎extraordinary and that the Courts have routinely denied ‎compassionate release based on such conditions. It also stated that ‎a vaccine had been offered to the Defendant but was refused.‎

Regarding the claim that COVID-related restrictions resulted in ‎his inability to participate in certain incentive programs, the Court ‎argued that access to such programs may have been suspended or ‎delayed, but had not been denied. ‎

Conclusions of the deciding body

The Court denied the Defendants’ motion for compassionate ‎release.‎

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Fundamental Right(s) involved
Prisoners’ rights
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
Health v. prisoner's rights
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)

The Court did not use balancing techniques, but based the ‎decision on procedural law and case law.‎

Author of the case note
Maíra Tito, Research Assistant, NOVA School of Law, Lisbon
Published by Chiara Naddeo on 18 June 2022

More cases from United States of America

  • United States of America, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 16 May 2022, Arc of Iowa et al. vs. Kimberly Reinolds et al
    Area: Use of protection devices
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to bodily integrity; Right to education
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, 18 May 2022, Open MRI and Imaging v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co.
    Area: Healthcare management (Covid related, excluding vaccination)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • United States of America, United States Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 25 May 2022, Allen Gahl v. Aurora Healthcare
    Area: Healthcare management (Covid related, excluding vaccination)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, 5 May 2022, Changizi et al. vs. Department of Health and Human Services
    Area: Health, right to information and freedom of expression
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of expression; Freedom of information
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 13 May 2022, In Re StubHub Refund Litigation
    Area: Consumer protection
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • United States of America, Court of Appeals of California, 15 November 2021, Inns-by-the-sea v. California Mutual Ins. Co., No. D079036
    Area: Consumer protection
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to property
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Load 6 more
List all available cases from United States of America

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Case Index
  3. United States of America, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, 28 March 2022, No. 18-578-01 (KM)‎
home

This project and its database have been made possible with the financial support from the World Health Organization

www.covid19litigation.org is run and maintained by the University of Trento
Via Calepina 14, I-38122 Trento (Italy) — P. Iva/C.F. IT-00340520220

Social Media Links

  • twitter
  • linkedin

Terms of use

www.covid19litigation.org
Site purpose

This site is for informational use only. Case law summaries are not legal advices and may not be relied on as such. Anyone seeking for legal advice should obtain appropriate legal counsel.

Site operation

This site may not be fully up-to-date (for example, cases may be reviewed, reversed, or appealed). This site may be taken down at any time without notice. The case law summaries provided on this site may be incomplete or outdated.

Copyright

Any files provided on this site were taken from a source that is, to the University of Trento and its Partners' best knowledge, from a freely available public resource, however, any further use of such files is at the user’s responsibility.

Responsibility

This site is maintained by the University of Trento, with financial support from the World Health Organization (WHO). The University of Trento will not be responsible for any use of the site.

No endorsement

Inclusion of a case on the website does not necessarily involve a view, position, or endorsement by the University of Trento or the WHO, including with respect to any legal matter. The site is not a product of WHO and does not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the WHO.

User account menu

  • Log in

Footer menu

  • Contacts
  • Terms of use
  • Privacy
  • Cookies