Ecker v. U.S., Civil Action No. 01-11310-NMG.
| Decision Date | 31 January 2008 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 01-11310-NMG. |
| Citation | 538 F.Supp.2d 331 |
| Parties | John Leonard ECKER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Neil Thomas Smith, Roberto M. Braceras, Joseph F. Savage, Jr., Goodwin Procter, LLP, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff.
Mary Elizabeth Carmody, Mark T. Quinlivan, U.S. Attorneys Office, Boston, MA, Mary Jo Madigan, United States Attorney's Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant.
The plaintiff, John Leonard Ecker ("Ecker"), was originally arrested on charges of felony possession of a firearm in 1989. He has remained in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") for mental health treatment due to the reports by his wardens and doctors that his mental illness rendered him a danger to others should he be released. Most recently, however, the Risk Assessment Panel reviewing his case decided that Mr. Ecker no longer required inpatient care and recommended him for conditional release. This Court convened a status conference on November 20, 2007, to discuss that Panel's report and informed the parties that such conditional release should be effected as soon as an appropriate plan could be formulated. Before the Court are 1) the Warden's proposed plan of conditional release, 2) Ecker's response to it, 3) the government's motion for reconsideration and retransfer to the District of Minnesota and 4) the government's motion for a conditional release hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246(e).
In a Memorandum and Order entered on November 21, 2007, this Court ordered the Warden of the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners (MCFP) in Springfield, Missouri to devise a plan for Ecker's conditional release and to submit it to the Court on or before January 22, 2008. Such a plan was to provide for a period of not more than six months' residence at an appropriate facility and for a smooth transition of Ecker's supervision from federal to state control.
The Warden has submitted a proposed plan for conditional release. Although the dates and terms are not in strict accord with this Court's order, it is evident that the plan is a good faith effort to effect a transfer of Ecker's supervision to state control. Accordingly, this Court will, with acknowledged appreciation, utilize the Warden's proposal as a basis for its order of conditional release.
The Warden of MCFP Springfield, Marty C. Anderson ("the Warden") has submitted to this Court a plan for Ecker's conditional release. In broad outline, the Warden's proposal is as follows:
1) Ecker is to spend at least six months in the general population at MCFP Springfield.
2) Ecker is to be transferred to a facility operated by the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health ("DMH"), most likely the Worcester State Hospital ("WSH").
d) to abstain from any contact with previously identified female victims of unwanted attention, etc.
4) For an indefinite period of time following his release from federal custody, the United States Probation Department is to assist the DMH in monitoring his compliance with all conditions of his release.
5) If at any time Mr. Ecker violates the conditions of his release, he is to be returned to federal custody.
Many aspects of the Warden's plan are prudent and reasonable. The transfer to state custody, whether to WSH or elsewhere, will likely be smoother if it is preceded by a transitional period in the general population at MCFP Springfield. The conditions of Mr. Ecker's release, such as continued medical treatment and abstinence from contact with previous victims of unwanted attention, are precisely tailored to ensure that Ecker will not become a substantial risk to the community.
There are, however, two structural changes that this Court must impose on the conditional release plan before it can be entered. First, in accordance with this Court's Order of November 21, 2007, the period of confinement at Springfield must not exceed six months and second, when Ecker is transferred to the custody of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, that transfer will be final. That is, because there are no grounds whatsoever on which the federal government may retain custody of Mr. Ecker, the plan of conditional release may provide no eventuality (short of the commission of a new federal crime) under which Ecker is to be returned to federal custody.
This Court is sensitive to the DMH's concerns about Ecker's history and current status but, as the November 21 Order made clear, continued incarceration in a federal facility is no longer an option. The conditions described below will be implemented in an effort to make Ecker's transfer to state custody as smooth and as safe as possible but they do not offer a prospect that the BOP will reassume responsibility for Ecker's care after he has been transferred to state custody. Therefore, any violation of the reasonable conditions identified by the Warden must carry, as the only consequence, the involuntary commitment to a state mental health care facility.
Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 69(e), a party may "direct the district court's attention to newly discovered material evidence or a manifest error of law or fact ... enabl[ing] the court to correct its own errors." Aybar v. Crispin-Reyes, 118 F.3d 10, 15 (1st Cir.1997). A motion for reconsideration should be granted only if the court has patently misunderstood a party or there is a significant change in the law or facts since the submission of the issues to the court by the parties. Reyes Canada v. Rey Hernandez, 224 F.R.D. 46, 48 (D.P.R. 2004) (citing Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir.1990)).
In response to the Warden's proposal for Ecker's conditional release, the government has filed a motion for reconsideration of this Court's prior ruling that it has jurisdiction over the civil commitment proceeding. The government notes that the transfer statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), authorizes transfer only to another district where the action could originally have been brought. It further contends that the commitment statute, 18 U.S.C. § 4246(a), authorizes suit only in the district in which a committed prisoner is incarcerated (in this case, the District of Minnesota). Therefore, it asserts that because the action could not have been originally brought in the District of Massachusetts, District Judge Magnussen's transfer of the case to this district was improper and this Court should remand the case accordingly.
The government's motion identifies no patent misunderstanding and there has been no significant change in the law or the facts since this issue was first submitted to the Court. Judge Magnuson's unequivocal intention was to transfer the case here and, as this Court has held before, it remains unwilling to "assume an appellate function and review the appropriateness of another district court's transfer order". United States v. Ecker, 489 F.Supp.2d 130, 134 (D.Mass.2007). The motion for reconsideration will be denied.
As a preliminary matter, the government notes that the process described in the statute begins with a certification by the Warden that the patient has recovered to such an extent that his release no longer poses a substantial risk, and that no such formal certification has been filed in this case.
This Court has not requested formal certification from the Warden of MCFP Springfield because to wait for such certification to arrive would have the effect of further delaying an already unacceptably protracted process. The certifications described in §§ 4246(e) and (g) are intended to provide the Court and the government with the opinion of the Warden and the medical staff with respect to whether an inmate has recovered from his mental condition to such an extent that he may be released. This Court has received that opinion through other means, including periodic status conferences and reports from the staff at Springfield and from the government. In particular, the October, 2007 Risk Assessment Report provided just such a statement of opinion and this Court treats it as a constructive certification pursuant to § 4246(e). This Court held further, in its November 21, 2007 Memorandum and Order, that any request for a discharge hearing or attempt to reclassify Ecker as too dangerous for release would precipitate the requirement of § 4246(g) that he be released to the state immediately.
The discharge provision under which Ecker is to be conditionally released, 18 U.S.C. § 4246(e), provides that upon certification that a prisoner is fit for release,
The court shall order the discharge of the person or, on the motion of the attorney for the Government or on its own motion, shall hold a hearing ... to determine whether he should be released.
If, after the hearing, the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has recovered from his mental disease or defect to such an extent that —
(2) his conditional release under a prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment would no longer create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another, the court shall —
(A) order that he be conditionally discharged ...
The government asserts that the quoted language requires the Court to hold a hearing if it is requested and, in any event, that such a hearing is a prerequisite to implementing a plan of conditional...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ecker v. U.S.
...United States v. Ecker, 489 F.Supp.2d 130 (D.Mass.2007); Ecker v. United States, 527 F.Supp.2d 199 (D.Mass.2007); Ecker v. United States, 538 F.Supp.2d 331 (D.Mass. 2008); United States v. Ecker, 30 F.3d 966 (8th Cir.1994); United States v. Ecker, 78 F.3d 726 (1st Cir.1996). Given this well......
-
U.S. v. LaBoy, Criminal No. 02-40003-NMG.
...that a court may reconsider a prior decision to serve the interests of justice but also cites two other cases, Ecker v. United States, 538 F.Supp.2d 331, 334 (D.Mass.2008), and United States v. Allen, No. 06-cr-10170, 2007 WL 1412563, at *2 (D.Mass. May 10, 2007), from this district to show......