United States v. Metz

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GLENN METZ

CRIMINAL ACTION No. 92-469

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

June 8, 2023

SECTION I

ORDER & REASONS

LANCE M. AFRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is defendant Glenn Metz's (“Metz”) motion^[1] for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The government opposes^[2] the motion. For the following reasons, the Court will deny Metz's motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Metz was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, conducting a continuing criminal enterprise (“CCE”), money laundering, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and carrying and using a firearm in aid of racketeering. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on December 15, 1993.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed Metz's conviction on August 14 1995 on all counts except for the conspiracy charge, which was vacated because it was a lesser included offense of the CCE charge of which Metz was also convicted. United States v. Tolliver, 61 F.3d 1189, 1223 (5th Cir. 1995) (“Tolliver I”). In United States v Tolliver, 116 F.3d 120 (5th Cir. 1997) (“Tolliver II”), the Fifth Circuit vacated Metz's firearms conviction after the Supreme Court's decision in Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1996).

The Fifth Circuit's decision in Tolliver II had no impact on the Metz's life sentence for his CCE conviction.

In the years since his conviction, Metz has filed a number of unsuccessful challenges to his conviction and his sentence,^[3] as well as several motions for compassionate release.^[4] Metz is currently incarcerated at FCI Butner Medium II (“Butner”).^[5] In the motion for compassionate release before the Court, Metz asks the Court to reduce his sentence to a term of time served or release him to home confinement.^[6]

Metz argues that extraordinary and compelling circumstances exist which warrant a reduction in his sentence, including his medical conditions and advanced age which render him unable to care for himself, the fact that he has received “grossly inadequate” medical care from the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), and the fact that he is at continued risk of contracting Covid-19.^[7] He also argues that, applying the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, his 30 years' of incarceration are a sufficient sentence, especially in light of his rehabilitation, lack of a disciplinary history in prison, and his positive role in the lives of his friends and family.^[8] The government opposes Metz's motion on three grounds. First, the government asserts that Metz has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.^[9]Second, the government asserts that Metz's medical conditions do not constitute extraordinary and compelling circumstances, and that a civil action, not a motion for compassionate release, is the appropriate vehicle to address Metz's arguments concerning the quality of medical care he is receiving from the BOP.^[10] Third, the government alleges that Metz has not demonstrated that the Court erred in its analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.^[11]

II. STANDARD OF LAW

The Court “may” grant defendant's motion for compassionate release pursuant to the First Step Act if, “after considering the factors set forth in [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)] to the extent they are applicable,” it finds that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).^[12] According to the statute, the Court must also conclude that “such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” Id. (ii). However, the Fifth Circuit-along with the Second, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits^[13]-has held that “neither the [Sentencing Commission's] policy statement nor the commentary to it binds a district court addressing a prisoner's own motion under § 3582.” United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 393 (5th Cir. 2021). Accordingly, the Court is “bound only by § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and, as always, the sentencing factors in § 3553(a).” Id. Nonetheless, the Fifth Circuit has also recognized that the policy statement may still “inform[ ] [its] analysis.” United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 433 (5th Cir. 2021).

The most relevant policy statement is found in § 1B1.13 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“U.S.S.G.”). The Application Notes to that policy statement, in turn, provide four categories of extraordinary and compelling reasons: “(1) medical conditions, (2) age, (3) family circumstances, and (4) ‘other reasons.'” Thompson, 984 F.3d at 433 (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, Policy Statement, cmt. n.1(A)-(D)) (alterations omitted). Before passage of the First Step Act, only the Director of the BOP-not defendants themselves-could move for compassionate release. The First Step Act changed that, but the Sentencing Commission's policy statements have lagged behind. Because these policy statements have not been amended since the enactment of the First Step Act, portions of the statements now contradict 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).^[14]

III. ANALYSIS

A. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

The government first opposes Metz's motion on the ground that he has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.^[15] A court may consider a defendant's motion for modification of a term of imprisonment only “after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant's behalf or [a] lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant's facility, whichever is earlier[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Failure to satisfy this prerequisite is not jurisdictional, but is rather a mandatory claim-processing rule that must be enforced if invoked by the government. United States v. Franco, 973 F.3d 465, 468-69 (5th Cir. 2020). The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that he has exhausted administrative remedies. United States v. Singleton, No. 14-168, 2022 WL 3576767, at *1 (E.D. La. Aug. 19, 2022) (Africk, J.).

The government states that Metz exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to two requests, filed on November 2, 2022 and November 4, 2022, urging the Warden to seek compassionate release on Metz's behalf, both of which referred to his medical concerns generally.^[16] However, the government asserts that Metz failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to the specific allegations raised in a January 2023 report^[17] from Dr. Anjali Niyogi (“Dr. Niyogi”) of Tulane University School of Medicine that Metz was “mistakenly [] prescribed antiplatelet medication, that the antiplatelet medication may have contributed to Metz's subdural hematoma, or that Metz was otherwise receiving inadequate medical care.”^[18]

Metz's November 2, 2022 request states: “I am requesting Compassionate Release because my health is in a state of constant decline such that it's becoming impossible for me [to] maintain my health in this environment .... A review of my medical records will show that I have been [to] several hospitals in the last few months and the diagnosis isn't good.”^[19] Metz's November 4, 2022 request states:

I'm elderly and have a medical condition. I'm currently 66 years old and I suffer from the following chronic and/or serious medical conditions: (1) Heart Disease, High Blood Pressure and Prostate Cancer[.] Moreover, I'm experiencing deteriorating mental and physical health that substantially diminishes my ability to Function in a Correctional Facility. My mental issues are as [f]ollows: (1) I had Brain Surgery[.]^[20]

The Warden of Metz's facility replied on November 14, 2022, stating that Metz does “not meet the criteria for Compassionate Release[,]”noting that he does “not have a terminal medical condition” or a “permanent debilitated medical condition.”^[21] He also states that “the BOP can provide conventional treatment which can substantially improve your mental and physical condition.”^[22] The government argues in its opposition to Metz's motion that Metz has not exhausted his administrative remedies with the BOP and instead “obtained a medical report from a doctor at the Tulane University School of Medicine and then [came] straight to this Court, rather than alerting BOP personnel to the findings in the report and giving BOP a chance to respond.”^[23] However, the Court is unpersuaded that merely attaching Dr. Niyogi's report to Metz's motion to this Court is an attempt to “jump the line.” The government does not cite, nor has the Court found, any authority which would require the inmate to provide the Warden with more detail than is necessary to provide notice of the grounds supporting compassionate release.

Metz's two requests to the Warden provide notice that Metz sought compassionate release based upon (1) his advanced age and the fact that he is “experiencing a serious deterioration in physical or mental health because of the aging process”^[24] and (2) the fact that he is “suffering from a serious physical or medical condition . . . that substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to provide self-care within the environment of a correctional facility and from which he [] is not expected to recover.”^[25] Metz also lists his medical conditions and concerns, which he offers as extraordinary and compelling circumstances in the instant motion.^[26] Metz' motion for compassionate release is therefore based upon the same general grounds alleged in his prior requests to the Warden.^[27]

Further as Metz notes in his reply to the government's opposition, Dr. Niyogi's report was based upon the BOP's own medical records.^[28] If the purpose of the exhaustion requirement is, as the government argues, partially to prevent the BOP from being “boxed out” and having “th...