Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
top of page


Fast Facts (Full BOP stats can be found here)

Confirmed active cases at 77 BOP facilities and 11 RRCs

Currently positive-testing inmates: 126 (up from 124) Currently positive-testing staff: 131 (down from 195) Recovered inmates currently in the BOP: 46,614 (down from 46,646) Recovered staff: 14,981 (up from 14,916)

Institutions with the largest number of currently positive-testing inmates:

Butner Medium I FCI: 12 (unchanged)

Houston FDC: 10 (up from 7)

Lompoc USC: 9 (unchanged)

Institutions with the largest number of currently positive-testing staff:

Grand Prairie: 13 (unchanged)

Pekin FCI: 11 (unchanged)

Dublin FCI: 7

System-wide testing results: Presently, BOP has 145,579 federal inmates in BOP-managed institutions and 12,853 in community-based facilities. Today's stats: Completed tests: 128,633 (up from 128,632) Positive tests: 55,281 (up from 55,280)

Total vaccine doses administered: 346,347 (up from 346,202)

Case Note: "[A] prisoner cannot use § 3582(c) to challenge the legality or the duration of his sentence ..."

In U.S. v. Escajeda, No. 21-50870, 2023 WL 195798 (5th Cir. Jan. 17, 2023) (published) (Oldham, J.), the court found that defendant's claims that he was deprived of effective assistance and was sentence beyond the statutory max required court to evaluate legality of sentence, issues reserved for habeas petitions, not compassionate release motions because "a prisoner cannot use § 3582(c) to challenge the legality or the duration of his sentence," explaining: "The First Step Act, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018), allows a prisoner to move for a sentence reduction under certain circumstances. One such circumstance is when “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant” a sentence reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). … These terms explain why prisoners can seek relief under § 3582(c)(1) only when they face some extraordinarily severe exigency, not foreseeable at the time of sentencing, and unique to the life of the prisoner. Section 3582(c)(1)'s authorization for compassionate release stands in contradistinction to other statutes that Congress passed to govern prisoners' postconviction proceedings. In Chapter 153 of Title 28, Congress provided specific avenues for post-conviction relief that permit prisoners to challenge the legality of their confinement in federal court. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2244, 2254, 2255. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that by codifying these specific provisions, Congress required prisoners to bring their legality-of-custody challenges under Chapter 153 and prohibited prisoners from bringing such claims under other, more-general statutes like 42 U.S.C. § 1983. … Judge Katsas has astutely referred to this as the “habeas-channeling rule” and held it likewise “forecloses using compassionate release to correct sentencing errors.” Jenkins, 50 F.4th at 1202. Judge Katsas explained:

The writ of habeas corpus—including section 2255, the habeas substitute for federal prisoners—traditionally has been accepted as the specific instrument to obtain release from unlawful confinement. As a result, an inmate may not rely on a generally worded statute to attack the lawfulness of his imprisonment, even if the terms of the statute literally apply. This includes both direct attacks seeking an injunction compelling speedier release and indirect attacks seeking a judicial determination that necessarily implies the unlawfulness of the [Government]'s custody.

Ibid. (quotation and internal citations omitted).The reason for the habeas-channeling rule is simple: If a prisoner could avoid the strictures Congress imposed in Chapter 153 by bringing their release-from-confinement claims under a different, more general, and more permissive statute, he obviously would. … Escajeda's claims are the province of direct appeal or a § 2255 motion, not a compassionate release motion. Specifically, he argues that his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. These are quintessential arguments for challenging the fact or duration of a prisoner's confinement under Chapter 153. Further, Escajeda admits in his § 3582(c)(1) motion that he moved for compassionate release because he worried that he could not win relief under § 2255. The habeas-channeling rule, however, prevents a prisoner from so easily steering around Chapter 153's strictures.”

Death Watch (Note: The BOP press website announces BOP COVID-related deaths here.) Today, the BOP announced no new COVID-related deaths, leaving the total number of inmate COVID-related deaths at 312. Eleven of the inmates died while on home confinement. Staff deaths remain at 7.

13 views0 comments
bottom of page