Crooker v. United States

• Decision Date: 18 December 2014
• Docket Number: No. 10-546C,10-546C
• Parties: MICHAEL ALAN CROOKER, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Claims Court

MICHAEL ALAN CROOKER, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

No. 10-546C

United States Court of Federal Claims

December 18, 2014

Unjust Conviction and Imprisonment; 28 U.S.C. § 1495; 28 U.S.C. § 2513; Damages; Sentencing Credit; 18 U.S.C. § 3585; Pre-Trial Detention

John Hardin Young, Sandler Reiff Young & Lamb, P.C., Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.

Steven M. Mager, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, United States Department of Justice, Washington D.C., for defendant. With him were Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Robert E. Kirshman, Jr., Director, Steven J. Gillingham, Assistant Director, and Sophia Y. Kil, Litigation Division, Office of Chief Counsel, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

OPINION AND ORDER

KAPLAN, Judge.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1495 and 2513 (collectively, the "unjust conviction statutes"), plaintiff Michael Alan Crooker has filed a complaint seeking damages to compensate him for his conviction and imprisonment on a firearms offense for which he was subsequently found not guilty. Mr. Crooker requests compensation for the 2,273 days in total that he was imprisoned following his arrest and until his conviction was reversed. He seeks the maximum amount allowable under the statute for the length of his incarceration, which amounts to $311,369.86.¹

The government agrees that Mr. Crooker has met the prerequisites to establish the government's liability under the statute by producing a certificate of innocence issued by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2513(b). Nonetheless, it opposes any award of damages to Mr. Crooker on several interrelated bases all arising out of the fact that after his unjust conviction was reversed, he (1) pleaded guilty to committing other offenses, including one he committed prior to his arrest on the firearms charge and (2) received a credit against the sentence imposed for those other offenses based on the time he served in connection with the firearms offense.

Pending before the Court are the parties' cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of Mr. Crooker's entitlement to damages. For the reasons set forth below, Mr. Crooker's motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and the government's motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

I. Mr. Crooker's Arrest

The events that ultimately led to this lawsuit began in April 2004, when the Postal Inspection Service received information suggesting that Mr. Crooker, who was then in the business of selling chemicals over the internet, was sending hazardous materials to buyers through the mail, in violation of Postal Service regulations. United States v. Crooker, 415 F. Supp. 2d 28, 29 (D. Mass. 2006). Because of his lengthy criminal record,² Mr. Crooker was "'well known' in Western Massachusetts law enforcement circles" so that his "name immediately raised a red flag" to the postal inspector. Id. The postal inspector asked the postmaster at Mr. Crooker's local post office to hold any package that Mr. Crooker attempted to mail. Id. On June 7, 2004, Mr. Crooker delivered a large package to the post office and deposited it for mailing. Id. As instructed, the postmaster set Mr. Crooker's parcel aside and notified the postal inspector. Id. at 30.

The postal inspector x-rayed the package and concluded that it contained a firearm, which, as a convicted felon, Mr. Crooker could not lawfully possess. Id. at 30. After securing a warrant, the postal inspector opened the package. Id. Contrary to his expectation, the package contained an air rifle, not a "firearm" within the meaning of federal law. United States v.Crooker, 608 F.3d 94, 96 (1st Cir. 2010).³ Id. The package, however, also contained a metal cylinder. Id. at 95. Although the cylinder was designed to muffle the sound of the airgun, it was also capable of being adapted to silence a firearm. Id. Because a "firearm silencer" falls within the statutory definition of a "firearm," 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)(C), the government arranged a controlled delivery of the package to its recipient in Ohio, and on that same day, June 23, 2004, authorities arrested Mr. Crooker and charged him with transporting a firearm after being convicted of a felony under § 922(g) ("the firearms charge"). Crooker, 608 F.3d at 96.

On the day of Mr. Crooker's arrest, agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ("ATF") searched Mr. Crooker's apartment, where they found chemicals, white powder, and other suspicious materials. Crooker, 608 F.3d at 95; Def.'s Reply to Pl.'s 2d Supplemental Br. App. 38-39, ECF No. 92. Mr. Crooker was eventually indicted on charges related to the possession of these materials. Id. App. 79-88. But that indictment, discussed below, did not issue until December 2007. Id. In the meantime, Mr. Crooker was imprisoned on the firearms charge, first in pre-trial detention, and later as a result of his conviction on those charges.

II. The Unjust Conviction

At Mr. Crooker's trial, the government proffered expert testimony to demonstrate that the metal cylinder found in Mr. Crooker's package constituted a "firearm silencer" or a "firearm muffler" within the meaning of the statute, which defines those terms as "any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication." 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24); Crooker, 608 F.3d at 96. The government's expert testified that the airgun silencer could be adapted for the purpose of muffling the sound of an ordinary firearm. Id. Mr. Crooker argued against the government's construction of the statute, contending that the statute covered only devices "designed or intended to be used" with a firearm. Id. Ultimately, however, the court instructed the jury that "the government need not prove Mr. Crooker or anyone else actually ever used [the device] as a firearm silencer or ever intended it to be used as a firearm silencer." Id. On July 11, 2006, the jury convicted Mr. Crooker, and he was sentenced to prison for 262 months. Pl.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. [hereinafter Pl.'s Mem.] 2, ECF No. 50.

Mr. Crooker appealed his conviction, arguing that the jury instructions mischaracterized the law. Crooker, 608 F.3d at 94. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agreed. Id. at 97. It held that the jury instruction was inconsistent with the proper, literal meaning of the statute, which covers only devices designed or intended to be used with a firearm and not those merely capable of such use. Id. at 97. Thus, because the jury did not find that Mr. Crooker intended to use the airgun silencer with a firearm, the court of appeals concluded, he was not guilty of any illegal conduct under the statute. Id. A Certificate of Innocence was issuedby the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on November 20, 2010. Pl.'s Mem. 2.

III. The Threat and Toxin Charges

On September 13, 2010, immediately after Mr. Crooker was released from prison based on the reversal of his firearms conviction, he was taken into custody by the Bureau of Prisons on the basis of the charges contained in an indictment that had issued almost three years earlier, on December 4, 2007. Pl.'s Mem. 2-3. The charges in that indictment were based on the materials seized from Mr. Crooker's apartment in the June 2004 search as well as conduct that occurred shortly thereafter during Mr. Crooker's pre-trial detention on the firearms charge. Def.'s Opp'n & Cross Mot. Ex. 6. Specifically, according to the indictment, in July 2004, about a month after he was arrested on the firearms charge, Mr. Crooker mailed the U.S. Attorney's office a threat to use ricin against government officials. Id. The indictment consisted of nine criminal counts, including mailing a threatening communication and possession or production of a toxin for use as a weapon ("threat and toxin charges"). Id.

In a plea agreement dated March 24, 2011, Mr. Crooker pleaded guilty to mailing a threatening communication and possession of a toxin without registration. Def.'s Opp'n & Cross Mot. Ex. 7. He also agreed to dismiss specific civil lawsuits he had filed, which were listed in an exhibit to the plea agreement, and any other lawsuits that were "connected to the investigation and prosecution of [the firearms case] or this case."⁴ Id. The parties agreed to jointly recommend a sentence of 180 months of incarceration and 36 months of supervised release. Id. They further agreed that "pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)(2), . . . the time [Mr. Crooker] spent in federal detention in [the firearms case] should be credited against his sentence in this case."⁵ Id. Thus, Mr. Crooker's sentence was reduced by the 2,553 days in total he served, first in pre-trial detention on the firearms charge, then based on his unjust firearms conviction on those charges, and finally in pre-trial detention for the threat and toxin charges (following his September 13, 2010 release from prison based on the reversal of his unjust conviction). Pl.'s Mem. 3. As of this opinion, Mr. Crooker is still serving time on that sentence.

IV. Mr. Crooker's Injuries

Including both his pre-trial detention and the time he served following his firearms conviction, Mr. Crooker spent six years and eighty-two days (or 2,273 days) in prison before his firearms conviction was reversed. Pl.'s Mem. 13. Mr. Crooker alleges (and the government does not deny) that during this time he suffered a number of injuries related to his unjust conviction and the conditions of his incarceration, including loss of liberty, emotional distress, negative health consequences, wrongful solitary confinement, and loss of the companionship of his girlfriend. See generally Pl.'s Mem. 12-18; Crooker Aff. 12-17, ECF No....