United States v. Broadfield, No. 20-2906 (7th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Seventh Circuit US Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Seventh Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Contending that his asthma and other breathing issues put him at extra risk should he contract COVID-19 while in prison, Broadfield applied for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A). For a prisoner who is younger than 70, relief depends on finding “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of relief. Broadfield has not been convicted of a weapons offense, but the district court cited such an offense in its decision. However, section 3582(c)(1)(A) does not make a judicial finding of non-dangerousness essential to compassionate release. When Broadfield's application was denied, COVID-19 was a grave problem in America’s prisons. The Bureau of Prisons reports that 1,300 prisoners at FCI Seagoville, where Broadfield is confined, have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. Because risk of COVID-19, which can bear especially hard on people with pre-existing breathing conditions, was Broadfield’s sole reason for seeking compassionate release, a remand would be pointless. A prisoner who remains at elevated risk because he has declined to be vaccinated cannot plausibly characterize that risk as an “extraordinary and compelling” justification for release. The federal judiciary need not accept a prisoner’s self-diagnosed skepticism about the vaccines as an adequate explanation for remaining unvaccinated, when the responsible agencies all deem vaccination safe and effective.
Download PDF
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-2906 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRIAN BROADFIELD, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 13-10055 — Michael M. Mihm, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED JULY 7, 2021 — DECIDED JULY 21, 2021 ____________________ Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and KIRSCH, Circuit Judges. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Contending that his asthma and other breathing issues put him at extra risk should he contract COVID-19 while in prison, Brian Broad eld applied to the district court for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A). For a prisoner who is younger than 70, this relief depends on a nding that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction” (§3582(c)(1)(A)(i)). 2 No. 20-2906 The district court denied the application, giving three reasons. First, the judge found that Broad eld’s documented medical conditions do not include asthma and that his wheezing appears to be the result of allergies rather than a chronic breathing problem. Second, the judge remarked that Broad eld has had multiple disciplinary problems in prison, leading to the loss of 27 days’ good time. The judge stated that this implies an elevated risk of recidivism. Finally, the judge wrote: Defendant is also a career o ender with convictions for both weapons and drug o enses. He also … received a six-level enhancement for manufacturing methamphetamine where children were present. Accordingly, the Court is unable to determine that Defendant is not a danger to his community as is required under the Compassionate Release statute. 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176175 *6 (C.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2020). Broad eld’s appellate brief concentrates on this third part of the district court’s explanation. Despite what the judge wrote, Broad eld has not been convicted of a weapons o ense. And §3582(c)(1)(A) does not make a judicial nding of non-dangerousness essential to compassionate release. All the statute requires is a nding of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” plus consideration of any sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) that are pertinent to the prisoner’s circumstances. Dangerousness is among the conditions that the Sentencing Commission requires a court to consider when the Bureau of Prisons seeks a person’s compassionate release, but we held in United States v. Gunn, 980 F.3d 1178 (7th Cir. 2020), that this proviso does not apply to prisoner-initiated applications, unless or until the Sentencing Commission revises the Guidelines to make it applicable. No. 20-2906 3 Broad eld wants us to remand with instructions to reconsider now that these misunderstandings have been cleared away. But a remand would be appropriate only if reconsideration could produce a decision in Broad eld’s favor, and it could not. When Broad eld led his application for compassionate release, and when the district judge denied it, COVID19 was a grave problem in America’s prisons, where people cannot engage in social distancing. Today, however, e ective vaccines are available. The Bureau of Prisons’ policy statement—COVID-19 Vaccine Guidance (Mar. 11, 2021)—says that prisoners will be o ered a vaccine in order of risk as soon as vaccines have been o ered to all sta members. That condition was satis ed months ago, and prisoners are regularly vaccinated. The Bureau of Prisons reports that 1,300 prisoners at FCI Seagoville, where Broad eld is con ned, have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. See hips://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/. This is short of the prison’s full population of roughly 1,700, but some may have been vaccinated before arrival, while others may have declined the opportunity. Broad eld has not contended that he wants to be vaccinated but that the Bureau of Prisons has failed to inoculate him. Because risk of COVID-19, which can bear especially hard on people with pre-existing breathing conditions, is Broad eld’s sole reason for seeking compassionate release, a remand would be pointless. Vaccinated prisoners are not at greater risk of COVID-19 than other vaccinated persons. (A more cautious statement would be that published data do not establish or imply an incremental risk for prisoners—either a risk of contracting the disease after vaccination or a risk of a severe outcome if a vaccinated person does contract the disease.) And a prisoner who remains at elevated risk because he 4 No. 20-2906 has declined to be vaccinated cannot plausibly characterize that risk as an “extraordinary and compelling” justi cation for release. The risk is self-incurred. In a supplemental ling after oral argument, Broad eld informed us that he was o ered a vaccine but declined. He maintains that he fears an allergic reaction, but he does not contend that he has su ered such a reaction to any other vaccine. The Bureau of Prisons’ policy statement provides that prisoners with a history of allergic reactions to vaccines will receive extra evaluation before vaccination and additional observation afterward, but Broad eld does not come within this category. He says that he has had an allergic reaction to two drugs (penicillin V and bupropion) and contends that this experience may show that he is allergic to polyethylene glycol, a component of both mRNA vaccines, or polysorbate, a component of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. But he does not contend that other people who have allergies to penicillin or bupropion have fared poorly after being vaccinated. None of the FDA, the CDC, or the WHO treats an allergy to penicillin or bupropion as a reason not to receive any of the COVID-19 vaccines. Instead they recommend (and the Bureau of Prisons provides) a 15-to-30-minute observation period after the injection so that allergic reactions may be detected and treated. The federal judiciary need not accept a prisoner’s self-diagnosed skepticism about the COVID-19 vaccines as an adequate explanation for remaining unvaccinated, when the responsible agencies all deem vaccination safe and e ective. Section 3582(c)(1)(A) was enacted and amended before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, and it will continue to serve a beneficent function long after the pandemic ends. But for the many prisoners who seek release based on the special risks created No. 20-2906 5 by COVID-19 for people living in close quarters, vaccines offer relief far more e ective than a judicial order. A prisoner who can show that he is unable to receive or bene t from a vaccine still may turn to this statute, but, for the vast majority of prisoners, the availability of a vaccine makes it impossible to conclude that the risk of COVID-19 is an “extraordinary and compelling” reason for immediate release. AFFIRMED
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
