UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES
v. Criminal No. 18-29 (JEB)
ANTHONY BROOKS,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendant Anthony Brooks is serving a ten-year mandatory-minimum sentence for
transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. He now moves for the
fourth time for compassionate release on the grounds that his medical conditions and the
situation in his prison facility render him susceptible to contracting COVID-19 and suffering
severe symptoms. Brooks argues that these conditions constitute “extraordinary and compelling
reasons” warranting his release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Because Defendant, who
has been vaccinated and has recovered from a COVID-19 infection, has not demonstrated that he
meets the statute’s requirements, the Court will again deny the Motion without prejudice. If his
underlying circumstances change, he may seek relief in the future.
I. Background
A. Factual Background
In early 2020, the United States was struck by the COVID-19 pandemic, which, as of this
writing, has caused the deaths of over one million people. See Coronavirus in the U.S.: Latest
Map and Case Count, The New York Times, https://nyti.ms/3NvdBLm, (last visited June 29,
2022). Incarcerated individuals have been threatened in particular, given their inability to isolate
1
or take other precautionary measures on their own. At the Federal Correctional Institution in
Danbury, Connecticut, where Brooks is housed among 1,024 inmates, there have been a total of
417 positive COVID-19 tests since the outset of the pandemic. See COVID-19 Vaccine
Implementation, BOP, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/ (last visited June 29, 2022) (noting that
number of positive tests does not equal number of cases because inmates can be tested more than
once); FCI Danbury Facility Information, BOP, https://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/dan/
(last visited June 29, 2022). In addition, 934 of the 1,024 total inmates in the facility have been
fully vaccinated. See COVID-19 Inmate Test Information, BOP,
https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus (last visited June 29, 2022) (noting that these data do not
include booster vaccinations). Today, there are zero inmates infected with COVID-19 at FCI
Danbury. See COVID-19 Cases, BOP, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus (last visited June 29,
2022). Since the outset of the pandemic, one inmate at FCI Danbury has died, and 318 have
recovered after being infected with COVID-19. Id.
B. Procedural History
Brooks filed his first Motion for Compassionate Release in April 2020, citing a “serious
heart condition” and asthma as health conditions that increased his risk of experiencing severe
COVID-19 symptoms. See ECF No. 53 (First Def. Mot.), ¶ 7. The Court denied that motion
without prejudice, pending the results of a concurrent civil proceeding concerning prison
conditions for all Danbury inmates. See Minute Order of April 23, 2020; Martinez-Brooks v.
Easter, 459 F. Supp. 3d 411, 454–56 (D. Conn. 2020). That litigation resulted in an order
requiring the Warden of FCI Danbury to identify inmates at increased risk of a severe reaction to
COVID-19 in order to prioritize them for transfer to home confinement. Id. In the Warden’s
analysis, Brooks was not recommended for home confinement because he was assessed to “not
2
have any risk factors that would put him at a higher risk of developing severe illness as a result
of COVID-19 based on CDC guidelines.” ECF No. 64 (Gov. Suppl.) at 3 (quoting ECF No. 64-1
(Brooks COVID-19 Home Confinement Review Sheet)).
Brooks then filed a Second Motion for Compassionate Release in June 2020, generally
citing the same grounds as his first — namely, that the dangerous conditions at the facility,
combined with his “serious heart condition” and “chronic asthma,” created extraordinary and
compelling reasons meriting his early release. See ECF No. 59 (Second Def. Mot.), ¶ 2. The
Court in December 2020 denied that Motion without prejudice again, concluding that
Defendant’s heart and asthma conditions did not qualify as extraordinary and compelling reasons
warranting his release. United States v. Brooks, No. 18-29, 2020 WL 7186157, at *2–3 (D.D.C.
December 7, 2020). One month later, Brooks filed a third Motion for Compassionate Release,
see ECF No. 67 (Third Def. Mot.), which the Court also denied on the basis that his health
conditions and the COVID-19-related conditions at FCI Danbury did not require his release,
especially following the national rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine. See ECF No. 73 (Order) at
1–2.
Defendant is back once more, this time with his fourth Motion for Compassionate
Release, contending that his medical conditions and FCI Danbury’s failure to protect him and
other inmates from the COVID-19 virus qualify as extraordinary and compelling reasons
meriting his release. See ECF No. 76 (Fourth Def. Mot.) at 3–5. In response, the Government
asserts that Brooks cannot challenge the constitutionality of his prison conditions in this
proceeding, see ECF No. 79 (Govt. Opp.) at 25–26, and that he fails to establish that his health
conditions meet the exacting standard. Id. at 15–21.
3
II. Legal Standard
Federal courts “may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed,” 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c), aside from “a few narrow exceptions.” Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S.
522, 526 (2011). One such exception provides for compassionate release, which defendants may
seek after exhausting administrative remedies. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (as modified by
the First Step Act of 2018). This section allows a court to reduce a final sentence “after
considering the factors set forth in [18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if
it finds that extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction” and the “reduction is
consistent with the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” Id.
In its applicable pre-COVID policy statement, the Sentencing Commission offers
examples of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that center on terminal illness, deteriorating
health and inability to care for oneself, and incapacitation of family members. See U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.13, cmts. (1)(A)–(C). In light of the COVID-19 crisis, however, courts have invoked
Section 1B1.13, cmt. (1)(D), which acknowledges that reasons “other than, or in combination
with, the reasons described” in (A)–(C) may present extraordinary and compelling
circumstances. Courts across the country have determined that the COVID-19 pandemic may
constitute such an additional reason, especially when the defendant is housed at a facility
experiencing a COVID outbreak and suffers from a health condition that increases the likelihood
that he will experience serious symptoms upon contracting the virus. See, e.g., United States v.
Morris, No. 12-154, 2020 WL 2735651, at *7 (D.D.C. May 24, 2020) (finding extraordinary and
compelling circumstances when medical conditions made defendant “particularly vulnerable to
severe COVID-19 infection” in light of Section 1B1.13(1), cmt. (1)(A)’s focus on self-care);
United States v. Johnson, 464 F. Supp. 3d 22, 38 (D.D.C. 2020) (“The compelling need for [the
4
defendant], in particular, to be released from . . . custody relates primarily to [his] heightened
risk of having serious medical complications if he were to contract COVID-19.”); United States
v. Lacy, No. 15-30038, 2020 WL 2093363, at *6 (C.D. Ill. May 1, 2020) (finding extraordinary
and compelling reasons given defendant’s medical conditions in combination with COVID-19
pandemic); United States v. McCarthy, 453 F. Supp. 3d 520, 527 (D. Conn. 2020) (finding
extraordinary and compelling reasons when defendant’s medical conditions “substantially
increase his risk of severe illness if he contracts COVID-19”). Courts rarely hold that the
pandemic alone means that an inmate who is not particularly susceptible to severe symptoms
should be released. See United States v. Raia, 954 F.3d 594, 597 (3d Cir. 2020) (“[T]he mere
existence of COVID-19 in society . . . cannot independently justify compassionate release.”).
If the court finds that extraordinary and compelling reasons merit early release, it must
then consider the sentencing factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) “to the extent that they are
applicable,” U.S.S.G § 1B1.13; 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), “presumably with an eye toward
whether it is necessary to maintain the prior term of imprisonment despite the extraordinary and
compelling reasons to modify the defendant’s sentence.” Johnson, 464 F. Supp. 3d at 30. When
the factors allow it, a court may then modify the sentence to time served. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A).
III. Analysis
A. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
The first requirement — namely, that Defendant exhaust all administrative remedies
before a term of imprisonment can be modified — is not at issue in this case. The Government
concedes that Brooks has satisfied his exhaustion requirements. See Govt. Opp. at 15. The
Court thus considers only whether he has established extraordinary and compelling reasons
5
warranting his release.
B. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons
In requesting compassionate release, Defendant cites both his health and the conditions at
FCI Danbury. The Court considers each separately.
1. Health Conditions
Brooks alleges that if he is infected with COVID-19, his “serious heart condition” and
“chronic asthma” will threaten his life. See Fourth Def. Mot. at 1–2. The Centers for Disease
Control states that “moderate-to-severe” asthma increases the likelihood that an affected
individual will be hospitalized with a COVID-19 infection. See People with Moderate to Severe
Asthma, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (April 7, 2021), https://bit.ly/3HZcy5e. As
the Court has previously held, however, Defendant’s claim that his asthma is “moderate-to-
severe” is unsupported by his medical records from the Bureau of Prisons, which do not suggest
that his asthma is elevated. Brooks, 2020 WL 7186157, at *3; ECF No. 59-2 (Def. Medical
Records). Brooks offers no reason here for the Court to change its findings with respect to his
asthma.
Defendant’s “serious heart condition” also fails to qualify as an extraordinary and
compelling reason. The CDC states that heart conditions including “heart failure, coronary
artery disease, cardiomyopathies, and possibly high blood pressure (hypertension)” can increase
the severity of COVID-19 symptoms. See People with Certain Medical Conditions, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (May 2, 2022), https://bit.ly/3QU34wh. Yet, the Court earlier
noted that Brooks’s medical report from the Federal Bureau of Prisons only indicates “certain
‘trace’ and ‘mild’ heart symptoms without diagnosis.” Brooks, 2020 WL 7186157, at *3. The
Court has also found that Defendant’s blood pressure fails to consistently reach the required
6
severity. See Order at 1 (noting that Brooks has had normal blood-pressure readings in every
test since a high blood-pressure reading in September 2020). Defendant also offers no
compelling reason to revise the Court’s findings with respect to his heart conditions.
Brooks, moreover, received his second dose of the Moderna vaccine on May 17, 2021.
See Govt. Opp. at 18. As the Court has previously stated, being vaccinated substantially
diminishes one’s risk of contracting COVID-19 or experiencing severe symptoms. See Order at
2. In fact, “Defendant . . . tested positive for COVID-19 in January 2022 but was
asymptomatic.” Govt. Opp. at 19. Courts repeatedly find that an inmate’s recovery from
COVID-19 balances heavily against finding extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence
reduction or release. See United States v. Winston, No. 94-296, 2021 WL 2592959, at *4
(D.D.C. June 24, 2021) (denying motion for compassionate release in part because defendant had
contracted COVID-19 and remained asymptomatic); United States v. Williams, No. 11-172,
2020 WL 6826740, at *6 (D. Conn. Nov. 20, 2020) (providing that, although COVID-19
diagnosis “does not moot [a] motion for compassionate release,” fact that defendant
“successfully weathered a previous infection without the need for hospitalization and without
any apparent lasting effects” weighed against his argument that his conditions were extraordinary
and compelling); United States v. Wagner, No. 18-155(1), 2020 WL 4034009, at *4 (E.D. Tex.
July 15, 2020) (holding that after defendant contracted COVID-19 and recovered, “the risks of
complications or death that he contend[ed were] extraordinary and compelling reasons for
compassionate release [were] no longer germane”); but see United States v. King, No. 18-318,
2021 WL 880029, at *4 (D.D.C. Mar. 9, 2021) (granting defendant’s motion for compassionate
release because of his medical conditions, new virus variants, risk of reinfection, his facility’s
poor control of the virus, and the time elapsed since his last infection).
7
The Court thus concludes that Defendant’s health conditions alone do not qualify as
extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting his release, especially considering his previous
asymptomatic infection and vaccinations.
2. Conditions at FCI Danbury
Brooks also emphasizes that BOP has failed to protect inmates at FCI Danbury from the
COVID-19 pandemic. His Motion states that at the time of its filing, on February 28, 2022, there
were three active inmate cases and four active staff cases of COVID-19. See Fourth Def. Mot. at
3. He also alleges that more than a dozen inmates tested positive for COVID-19 and were then
returned to their dorms with other inmates, including Brooks, who, after testing positive for
COVID-19, was placed in a dormitory that contained bunk beds separated by only three feet. Id.
The Motion also cites visits by Senators Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy to the facility in
January 2022, who commented that they were denied access to certain parts of the facility while
cases were high. Id. at 3–4.
In response, the Government contends that allegations concerning the conditions of
Defendant’s confinement are not properly before the Court because challenges to the
constitutionality of BOP’s actions must be filed as a civil suit separate from the underlying
criminal case. See Govt. Opp. at 25. This position mischaracterizes Brooks’s argument,
however. His Motion does not offer a constitutional challenge; instead, he attempts to invoke the
conditions as extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release.
Courts regularly take into consideration a prison facility’s failure to protect inmates from
COVID-19 when deciding whether to grant a motion for compassionate release. See, e.g.,
United States v. Babbitt, 496 F. Supp. 3d 903, 909 (E.D. Pa. 2020) (stating that courts should
consider “the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, the defendant’s health conditions, . . .
8
and the risk of contracting COVID-19 at the defendant’s facility,” but noting that no single factor
is dispositive) (emphasis added). Instances in which a facility’s conditions influenced a court’s
decision on a motion for compassionate release, however, involve far worse conditions than the
situation at FCI Danbury. See, e.g., id. at 912 (granting release from facility that failed to test
and isolate defendant when there had been almost one thousand cases and nine deaths caused by
COVID-19 in half a year); United States v. Keys, No. 16-234, 2020 WL 6700412, at *2 (E.D.
Cal. Nov. 13, 2020) (granting release in part because over 574 total inmates had been infected
and ten inmates had died from COVID-19 in the facility); United States v. Patrick, No. 17-38,
2021 WL 164554, at *4 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 19, 2021) (granting release in part because over 36% of
facility’s inmates were infected at time of opinion).
At the time Defendant filed this Motion, there were four active staff cases at FCI
Danbury and three active inmate cases out of the 1,029 total inmates incarcerated. See Govt.
Opp. at 21. In total, 318 inmates in FCI Danbury have recovered from the virus since the
beginning of the pandemic. See COVID-19 Vaccine Implementation, BOP,
https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus (last visited June 29, 2022). In addition, around 91% (934 of
1,024) inmates have been vaccinated twice, further reducing Defendant’s risk of contracting the
virus again while incarcerated. See id.; see also United States v. Mata, No. 15-44, 2021 WL
851876, at *2 (D. Or. Mar. 5, 2021) (finding that there were no extraordinary and compelling
reasons for release at FCI Danbury, in part because facility was adequately controlling COVID-
19).
While no clearly established line has been drawn by the courts, the numbers cited in
Defendant’s Motion concerning the situation at FCI Danbury are nowhere near the same high-
risk level as the previously mentioned cases, nor do they seem to indicate that the facility was
9
experiencing a COVID-19 outbreak. The facility, furthermore, is experiencing nothing of
concern at the time of this Opinion, as zero inmates at FCI Danbury are currently infected. See
COVID-19 Cases, BOP, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus (last visited June 29, 2022). Even if
the Court were to find that the facility’s conditions qualify as extraordinary and compelling
reasons for Defendant’s release, courts have found that prison conditions in themselves are not
dispositive and should be considered alongside the inmate’s health conditions. See, e.g., United
States v. Stephens, No. 16-20677, 2021 WL 243159, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 25, 2021) (denying
compassionate release to inmate despite outbreak of COVID-19 in prison because he lacked
requisite medical risk factors). In any event, the Court finds that the conditions in FCI Danbury
do not rise to a level where they might be considered extraordinary and compelling.
IV. Conclusion
As Brooks does not meet the extraordinary-and-compelling standard warranting
compassionate release, the Court will deny his Motion. A separate Order so stating will issue
this day.
/s/ James E. Boasberg
JAMES E. BOASBERG
United States District Judge
Date: June 29, 2022
10