Granger v. United States
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:14-cv-06627-KMK
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
United States v. Granger: Judge Karas directed the government to respond to Granger’s successive compassionate-release motion but did not decide it.
Kareem Granger and the United States; the government was ordered to respond to Granger’s successive compassionate-release motion by October 17, 2022.
What happened
In United States of America v. Kareem Granger, Granger asked the court to reduce his prison sentence or release him under the compassionate-release law. He said his health concerns, prison conditions, past convictions, age at the time of his crimes, and rehabilitation supported relief.
Granger also said he had completed the required administrative process after the prison warden denied his request. The opinion describes his arguments and attaches the warden’s denial, which stated that his medical circumstances and release plan did not meet the prison system’s criteria.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas did not rule on the motion’s merits. On September 23, 2022, he ordered the government to respond by October 17, 2022, and directed that a copy be mailed to Granger.
The detailed version
- Granger v. United States · No. 7:14-cv-06627-KMK
- Kenneth Karas
- Sept. 23, 2022
Background
Kareem Granger filed a successive motion asking the court to reduce his sentence or release him under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), the federal compassionate-release statute. The opinion also lists the related criminal docket as No. 11 Cr. 630 (KMK). The filing states that the motion followed a request to the warden of Schuylkill on August 2, 2022, which was denied.
Granger’s asserted reasons
Granger argued that the coronavirus pandemic created health risks because he had previously recovered from lymphoma cancer and feared a future variant could threaten vaccinated people. He also described lockdowns, limited family contact, reduced in-person programming, and resulting emotional and mental-health effects. He characterized the prison conditions as cruel and unusual punishment, but the opinion does not decide that constitutional argument.
Granger separately challenged two prior convictions used in calculating his career-offender status. He argued that the convictions did not qualify as serious drug felonies and that New York’s drug statute was broader than the comparable federal definition. He asserted that, without the career-offender enhancement, his guideline range would have been 70 to 87 months.
Granger also relied on his upbringing, youth when he committed the crimes, family role, prison conduct, work as a barber, efforts to teach other incarcerated people barbering, and completion of programs. He stated that his projected release date was October 5, 2025, and that he had a residence and employment available if released.
Administrative response
The prison’s written response stated that Granger’s medical history did not meet the criteria it applied to compassionate release, that he could independently perform daily activities and self-maintenance, and that he had not supplied all requested treatment, payment, and release-plan information. The response also denied priority placement in home confinement, citing his medium security classification and current violent offense. It stated that the prison system lacked authority to change his sentence through its compassionate-release procedures and advised him that he could petition the sentencing court.
Court action
The court’s September 23, 2022 endorsement did not grant, deny, dismiss, or otherwise decide Granger’s successive motion. Instead, it directed the government to respond by October 17, 2022 and directed the clerk to mail a copy of the endorsement to Granger. Because the provided opinion is an order requesting a response rather than a decision on the motion, the merits of compassionate release remain unresolved in this text.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.