United States District Court, E.D. Washington
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER
DETENTION MOTION DENIED (ECF NO. 31)
T. RODGERS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
August 27, 2019 hearing on Defendant's Motion to
Reconsider Detention, ECF No. 31, Assistant U.S. Attorney
Caitlin Baunsgard appeared for the United States. Defendant
was present, in custody, represented by attorney Mark Vovos.
Court considered the report of Pretrial Services at ECF No.
16, and the Supplemental Pretrial Services Report at ECF No.
33, as well as Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration at
ECF No. 31, and medical records at ECF No. 35. The Court also
heard the statement of Deputy U.S. Marshal Jerome Brown, and
the argument of counsel.
request for release centers on his medical condition. Some
sixteen years ago this now 49 year old man was shot in the
back, resulting in spinal injuries leaving him unable to
ambulate without a wheelchair or walker, and with internal
injuries that necessitate the use of a colostomy bag and/or
disposable rubber gloves to accomplish his daily bodily
functions. Defendant argues that these daily requirements, as
well as therapy to prevent his legs from atrophying, require
care that is not available in custody.
Court notes the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause
governs the treatment and conditions of confinement for
pretrial detainees, rather than the Eighth Amendment cruel
and unusual punishment prohibition applicable in
post-conviction situations, Gordon v. County of
Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2018).
United States contended that if released Defendant, would
present a risk of flight and a danger to the safety of the
community. The United States argues that Defendant poses a
risk of flight because of his alleged capacity to travel up
and down the west coast of the United States transporting
pound-quantities of methamphetamine in spite of his medical
situation, the ten year mandatory minimum sentence if
convicted, and ties to a foreign country.
argues that he has a proposed residence in this district, and
that his comfort and medical needs would be better addressed
to 18 U.S.C. § 3142, this Court has taken into account
the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, the
weight of the evidence against the Defendant, as well as
Defendant's history and characteristics, including
character, physical and mental condition, family ties,
employment, financial resources, length of residence in the
community, community ties, past conduct and history relating
to alcohol and drug abuse, and also criminal history, record
concerning appearance at court proceedings, whether Defendant
was under supervision at the time of the alleged offense, and
the nature and seriousness of the danger to the community
posed by Defendant's release.
Court finds there is probable cause Defendant has committed
an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten
years or more is prescribed under the Controlled Substances
Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801, et seq.
Court also finds Defendant has not rebutted the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(e) presumption and has not met the burden of
production establishing there are conditions which will
reasonably assure his appearance and the safety of the
Court further finds the United States has established by the
required preponderance of evidence an absence of conditions
or combination of conditions that would reasonably assure
this Defendant's presence at trial and by clear and
convincing evidence that Defendant poses a present risk to
the safety of other persons or the community.
minimizing the gravity of the medical condition Defendant
must cope with every day of his life, the available evidence
indicates that Defendant has been visited and queried by jail
medical staff three times daily, has been afforded the
supplies necessary to deal with his condition, and has not
requested any other specific medications or supplies.
Defendant's condition is not emergent. In addition, the
information regarding Defendant's name and background and
biography are somewhat unclear, leaving the Court no reliable
information upon which to fashion conditions of release.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
1. Defendant's Motion to Reconsider Detention,
ECF No. 31, is DENIED.
Defendant shall be held in detention pending disposition of
this case or until further order of the court.
2. Defendant is committed to the custody of the U.S. Marshal
for confinement separate, to the extent practicable, from
persons awaiting or serving sentences or ...