519 F.Supp.3d 760
S.D. Cal.2021Background
- David Grummer was convicted in 2010 of multiple counts of receiving and possessing child pornography and sentenced to 295 months’ imprisonment plus 15 years’ supervised release.
- He is incarcerated at FCI Terminal Island with a projected release date of February 22, 2031.
- At the time of the motion Grummer was 55 and has chronic heart disease, hypertension, asthma, prior heart surgery (2012), and a 2015 heart attack; he takes medication for atrial fibrillation/flutter.
- Grummer filed a compassionate‑release motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) on December 22, 2020; the warden denied his BOP request on December 7, 2020, satisfying the exhaustion requirement.
- Grummer received two doses of the Pfizer COVID‑19 vaccine (Dec. 30, 2020 and Jan. 20, 2021); the government argued vaccination largely mitigates his COVID risk.
- The Court denied the compassionate‑release motion on February 16, 2021, concluding Grummer failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Grummer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Administrative exhaustion under § 3582(c)(1)(A) | Warden denied request; exhaustion satisfied | Grummer complied with BOP process; may proceed | Exhaustion satisfied; court reached merits |
| 2. Whether Grummer’s health/COVID risk constitutes "extraordinary and compelling reasons" | Chronic conditions alone do not qualify, especially after vaccination | Serious heart and respiratory conditions plus congregate setting create extraordinary risk | Denied—vaccination and conditions do not establish extraordinary and compelling reasons |
| 3. Effect of COVID‑19 vaccination on eligibility for release | Vaccination substantially reduces risk of severe COVID, undermining extraordinary‑and‑compelling claim | Vaccine efficacy in prison and vs. variants uncertain; risk persists | Vaccination significantly mitigates risk; court credits that in denying relief |
| 4. Applicability of Sentencing Commission policy statement and public‑safety/§ 3553(a) factors | Court must ensure consistency with U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 and consider dangerousness under § 3553(a) | Court may independently define "extraordinary and compelling" (cites Brooker) | Even if §1B1.13 non‑binding, court must consider dangerousness and §3553(a); Grummer not entitled to release |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Penna, 319 F.3d 509 (9th Cir. 2003) (district court cannot modify a sentence except as authorized by statute)
- United States v. Jones, 836 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 2016) (defendant bears burden to show entitlement to sentence reduction)
- United States v. Brooker, 976 F.3d 228 (2d Cir. 2020) (district courts may determine what constitutes "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for compassionate release)