453 F.Supp.3d 601
E.D.N.Y2020Background
- William Sawicz was serving a five‑year prison term (imposed Aug. 23, 2016) after a supervised‑release violation for possessing child pornography; he was imprisoned at FCI Danbury.
- Sawicz has hypertension and takes Lisinopril and low‑dose aspirin; counsel could not access BOP medical records but the government did not dispute the condition.
- A significant COVID‑19 outbreak occurred at FCI Danbury; Attorney General Barr issued a CARES Act finding on April 3, 2020 authorizing expanded use of home confinement.
- Sawicz requested transfer to home confinement and submitted compassionate‑release requests to the warden on April 5 and April 9, 2020; the warden had not responded within 30 days.
- The government opposed Sawicz’s district‑court motion primarily on the ground that he had not exhausted BOP administrative remedies.
- The court waived exhaustion, found the combination of the Danbury outbreak and Sawicz’s hypertension created an extraordinary and compelling reason for release, considered §3553(a) and §3142(g) factors, and granted compassionate release to time served with conditions (immediate release, 14‑day home quarantine, 6 months home confinement with electronic monitoring, and 5 years supervised release with prior conditions reinstated).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court must enforce BOP administrative exhaustion before hearing a §3582(c)(1)(A) motion | Waive exhaustion because waiting 30 days would cause undue delay and catastrophic health risk given Danbury outbreak and Sawicz’s hypertension | Must enforce exhaustion; Sawicz’s requests were submitted less than 30 days earlier | Court waived exhaustion under equitable exceptions (danger/undue delay) and proceeded to decide the motion |
| Whether COVID‑19 risk plus Sawicz’s hypertension constitute "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for release | The pandemic plus his vulnerability meet the standard for compassionate release | Government did not dispute the medical risk argument | Court found extraordinary and compelling reasons exist and justified release |
| Whether §3553(a) sentencing factors and need for deterrence/public safety counsel against release | §3553(a) factors do not justify keeping him imprisoned during a deadly outbreak, especially as he was months from ordinary home confinement eligibility | Government raised no substantive §3553(a) counterarguments | Court concluded §3553(a) factors did not outweigh the extraordinary reasons for release |
| Whether release is inconsistent with Sentencing Commission policy (dangerousness under §3142(g)) | Sawicz would quarantine at his parents’ home and poses low public‑safety risk; nonviolent offense history supports release | Government did not present a danger argument | Court found Sawicz is not a danger and release is consistent with policy; imposed strict home‑confinement and monitoring conditions |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. Barr, 925 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2019) (discussing circumstances in which a court may waive administrative‑exhaustion requirements)
- McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140 (1992) (administrative exhaustion is not absolute; courts may recognize equitable exceptions)
- Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001) (discusses exhaustion principles; noted as superseded on other grounds)