United States v. Fields

569 F.Supp.3d 231

UNITED STATES of America

v.Tyrone FIELDS

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 10-81

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed November 3, 2021

Eric B. Henson, U.S. Attorney's Office, Philadelphia, PA, for United States of America.

MEMORANDUM

CYNTHIA M. RUFE, District Judge

Tyrone Fields (inmate number 65168-066), a forty-one year-old inmate who has served 144 months of a 180-month sentence, has filed a motion for compassionate release pursuant to the First Step Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Mr. Fields is currently scheduled for early release to a halfway house on March 15, 2022, as the result of his "exemplary compliance with institutional disciplinary regulations" under 18 U.S.C. § 3624.¹

On September 2, 2021, Mr. Fields filed a Motion Requesting Judicial Recommendation Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(4)(B).² This motion alleged a failure of the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") to schedule Mr. Fields's early release due to two unresolved criminal cases that appeared on Mr. Fields's BOP background check: one apparently arising in 2000 and one apparently arising in 2009.³ Mr. Fields's release date has now been scheduled, so this motion appears to be moot.⁴

On October 8, 2021, Mr. Fields filed an Emergency Request for Compassionate Release. This Compassionate Release motion asserted that his imminent release to a halfway house and ongoing child custody proceedings surrounding the care of his twelve-year-old daughter were "extraordinary and compelling" reasons supporting a modification of his sentence.⁵

The government opposes both of Mr. Fields's motions.⁶ Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions and the available record, the Court will grant Mr. Fields's Emergency Request for Compassionate Release and dismiss Mr. Fields's Motion Requesting Judicial Recommendation as moot.

I. BACKGROUND

The background of Mr. Fields's case was extensively discussed by this Court in its denial of an earlier motion for compassionate release based on the COVID-19 pandemic. In summary:

In March of 2009, Philadelphia police officers responded to a call made by [Mr. Fields's] girlfriend, who testified that "she believed Fields was drunk and was planning ‘to open the door [to their residence] with [a] butter knife’ " after she had locked him out following an argument. The officers found Fields tampering with the lock with a butter knife, and when asked to put the knife down, he put it up his sleeve. One officer put Fields in a "control hold and the knife fell to the ground." Maintaining the hold, the officer frisked Fields for other weapons and found a semiautomatic pistol loaded with ten rounds of ammunition. The officers discovered that Fields did not have a permit for the firearm and he was subsequently arrested. In May 2011, Fields was convicted by a jury on one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and § 924(e).

Fields had three prior felony drug convictions for possessing with the intent to distribute cocaine base ("crack"). As a result, Fields was subject to an armed career criminal enhancement at sentencing. On February 8, 2012, the Court sentenced Fields to 180-months of imprisonment. The Third Circuit affirmed, and Fields is currently serving his sentence at FCI Allenwood Low.⁷

On June 8, 2020, Mr. Fields filed a motion for compassionate release, asserting that he suffered from certain medical conditions that increased his risk of a severe infection from COVID-19, including chronic kidney disease and hypertension.⁸ The Court denied the motion without prejudice on December 18, 2020, finding that it did "not present an extraordinary and compelling reason to warrant compassionate release," in large part because Mr. Fields's "medical records [did] not support [his] assertions and he [had] not been diagnosed with either [chronic kidney disease or hypertension ]."⁹

On July 26, 2021, Mr. Fields received a notice from the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Family Division – Juvenile Court (the "Juvenile Court") that his twelve-year-old daughter,¹⁰ here referred to as "T.F.," had been placed in protective custody and removed from her mother's home following allegations of physical, verbal, and sexual abuse at the hands of her mother and her mother's boyfriend.¹¹ On investigation, the Philadelphia Department of Human Services ("DHS") learned certain supporting details and attempted to initiate a "Safety Plan" that placed T.F. with one of her maternal great-grandmothers.¹² However, this placement failed,¹³ and T.F. "was placed in foster care through A Second Chance, Inc."¹⁴ Based partly on the fact that "[Mr. Fields] is incarcerated," DHS recommended that T.F. "be committed to the [custody of the] the City of Philadelphia Department of Human Services."¹⁵ The Juvenile Court then appointed counsel to represent Mr. Fields.¹⁶ On August 12, 2021, Mr. Fields received a letter from the assigned case manager notifying him that a court hearing in the custody matter had been held on August 5, 2021, and that a case meeting was scheduled for September 8, 2021.¹⁷ The attorney assigned to Mr. Fields appeared at each court proceeding.¹⁸

During this time, Mr. Fields seems to have been working diligently to secure his release to a halfway house. On September 2, 2021, Mr. Fields filed the Motion Requesting Judicial Recommendation, attaching evidence that the BOP had sent repeated requests to the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office seeking details about unidentified arrests from 2000 and 2009 that were appearing on Mr. Fields's background check.¹⁹

On September 9, 2021, Mr. Fields received a letter (apparently mailed on September 2, 2021) notifying him that another court hearing in the custody matter had been held on August 31, 2021, belatedly reminding him of the meeting scheduled for September 8, 2021, and informing him that a "contested adjudicatory hearing" was scheduled for November 1, 2021.²⁰ On receipt of this notice, Mr. Fields immediately filed a request for compassionate release based on the ongoing custody proceedings.²¹ This request was denied on September 24, 2021, and Mr. Fields shortly thereafter filed the present motion seeking compassionate release from this Court.²² The government responded to both of Mr. Fields's motions on October 8, 2021, the day that the motion for compassionate release was received by the Clerk of Court and docketed, and the Court then appointed counsel to represent Mr. Fields in connection with the compassionate release motion.²³

II. LEGAL STANDARD

"A court generally may not correct or modify a prison sentence once it has been imposed, unless permitted by statute or by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35."²⁴ One statute that permits such modifications is 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(1)(A)(i), which, as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, "allow[s] prisoners the right to file their own motions for a sentence reduction if they first exhaust the statute's procedures for initially making a request to the warden to file a motion on their behalf."²⁵ Once a defendant has satisfied the exhaustion requirement, the court may reduce a term of imprisonment based on a finding that "the sentence reduction is (1) warranted by ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’; (2) ‘consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission’;²⁶ and (3) supported by the traditional sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent they are applicable."²⁷ The defendant bears the burden of showing that relief is warranted.²⁸

III. DISCUSSION

A. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582, as modified by the First Step Act of 2018, a prisoner may seek compassionate release either (1) "upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons;" or (2) upon motion of the defendant, after (a) "the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the BOP to bring a motion on the defendant's behalf;" or (b) "the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant's facility, whichever is earlier. "²⁹ The Third Circuit has mandated "strict compliance with § 3582(c)(1)(A) ’s exhaustion requirement."³⁰ Mr. Fields filed the motion less than 30 days after his initial request to the warden of FCI Allenwood Low on September 9, 2021,³¹ and did not appeal through the administrative processes within the BOP from the denial issued on September 24, 2021.³²

As the government has not asserted failure to exhaust as an affirmative defense, it is forfeited. The administrative exhaustion requirement of § 3582(c)(1)(A) "is mandatory, but has not been held to be jurisdictional in nature;" instead, it is properly categorized as a "claim-processing rule."³³ The Supreme Court has "stressed the distinction between jurisdictional prescriptions and nonjurisdictional claim-processing rules."³⁴ "Courts must raise jurisdictional defects on their own initiative and may not overlook them even if the parties forfeit or waive challenges to them."³⁵ While a mandatory claim-processing rule "must be enforce[d] if a party ‘properly raises it,’ ... an objection based on a mandatory claim-processing rule may be forfeited ‘if the party asserting the rule waits too long to raise the point."³⁶ Such "mandatory claim-processing rules bind the courts only when properly asserted and not forfeited."³⁷ The § 3582(c)(1)(A) exhaustion requirement falls into this category; the government has failed to raise the failure to exhaust as an affirmative defense, and the Court will address the merits of the motion for compassionate release.³⁸ The Court must determine whether the sentence reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission, supported by the traditional sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and warranted by extraordinary and compelling reasons.

B. Supported by Traditional Sentencing Factors

Any sentence reduction granted under § 3552 (c)(1)(A) must be supported...