Blanks v. USA

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Movant Jerris M. Blanks' pro se Motion for Release Pending Disposition of Habeas Corpus and Expedited Ruling Due to Medical Emergency (ECF No. 3 ), and Supplemental Motion for Release Pending Disposition of Motion to Vacate and Request for Expedited Ruling Due to Medical Emergency (ECF No. 20 ), are DENIED. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 05/19/2023. (KCD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JERRIS M. BLANKS,
Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:22-CV-1257 RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is before the Court on review of Movant Jerris M.
Blanks’ pro se Motion for Release Pending Disposition of Habeas Corpus and Expedited Ruling
Due to Medical Emergency (ECF No. 3), and Supplemental Motion for Release Pending
Disposition of Motion to Vacate and Request for Expedited Ruling Due to Medical Emergency
(ECF No. 20). In support of his motions, Blanks asserts that the claims set forth in his Motion to
Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 are likely to succeed, and that he
can show “exceptional and rare circumstances” warranting immediate release on bond, specifically
that he has untreated sleep apnea in addition to a number of other medical conditions and receives
inadequate medical care in the federal Bureau of Prisons, and he is needed to care for his elderly,
disabled grandmother while his mother undergoes heart surgery. The United States has not
responded to these motions. After careful review of the record, Blanks’ motions will be denied.
Procedural History
Blanks was indicted by a federal grand jury in the underlying criminal case on June 29,
2016, United States v. Blanks, Case No. 4:16-CR-270 ERW (the “Criminal Case”). 1 Blanks was
charged with one count of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C.

The Criminal Case was later reassigned to this Court.

1

§ 2252A(a)(5)(B). On June 14, 2017, Blanks was charged by superseding indictment with one
count of receipt of child pornography in violation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2), and two
counts of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). On January
16, 2019, after a three-day trial, Blanks was found guilty by a jury on all counts of the superseding
indictment.
On May 15, 2019, Judge E. Richard Webber sentenced Blanks to a term of 130 months
imprisonment on each of counts one, two, and three, all such terms to be served concurrently, 15
years of supervised release, with restitution to be determined within 70 days. (Crim. Case ECF No.
248). Blanks was remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal, and the federal Bureau of
Prisons (“BOP”) designated Blanks for placement at FCI Texarkana, in Texarkana, Texas, and
later transferred him to FCI Seagoville, in Seagoville, Texas, where he is currently incarcerated.
Blanks filed a Notice of Appeal on May 15, 2019. On August 1, 2019, Judge Webber issued
an Amended Judgment that included a restitution order in the amount of $5,000.00 pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3663A. (Crim. Case ECF No. 269). On April 13, 2020, the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals granted the parties’ joint motion for a limited remand for the district court to resentence
Blanks on Count Two of the superseding indictment, and held the appeal in abeyance pending the
district court’s entry of an order or amended judgment. The parties agreed that remand for
resentencing was appropriate because the sentence imposed on Count Two of the superseding
indictment exceeded the statutory maximum. (Id. No. 276).
Judge Webber held a resentencing hearing on May 4, 2020, in which Blanks and all counsel
participated by telephone under Section 15002(b)(2)(A) of the CARES Act, as a result of the
COVID-19 crisis. (Crim. Case ECF No. 284). Judge Webber resentenced Blanks to a total term of
130 months imprisonment, consisting of a term of 130 months on each of counts one and three,

2

and 120 months on count two, all such terms to be served concurrently. (Id. No. 285). The
supervised release term and restitution order were unchanged. (Id.)
While the appeal was pending, Blanks filed a pro se motion for compassionate release
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), based on medical conditions that he asserted placed him in
exceptional danger due to conditions of incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic. (Crim.
Case ECF No. 296). The Office of the Federal Public Defender supplemented Blanks’ motion for
compassionate release. (Id. No. 302). The United States opposed the motion (id. No. 308) and
Blanks, though counsel, filed a Reply (id. No. 310).
On February 1, 2021, the Eighth Circuit affirmed Blanks’ conviction and judgment. United
States v. Blanks, 985 F.3d 1070 (8th Cir. 2021).
On May 12, 2021, Judge Webber denied Blanks’ motion for compassionate release without
prejudice, concluding that Blanks failed to show he exhausted BOP administrative remedies as
required by the statute. Judge Webber also discussed all of Blanks’ assertions concerning his
medical conditions, but concluded that even if the motion was properly exhausted, Blanks failed
to meet his burden to show he qualified for compassionate release, as he did not identify an
extraordinary and compelling reason justifying early release. (Crim. Case ECF No. 321).
Blanks filed a motion for reconsideration and second motion for compassionate release
through counsel (id. Nos. 324, 338), and a number of pro se motions for reconsideration, to amend
and supplement the compassionate release motion, and to disqualify Judge Webber. (Id. Nos. 332334, 336, 340, 350). On reconsideration, in a careful and detailed opinion, Judge Webber found
that Blanks had properly exhausted his administrative remedies, but concluded Blanks still failed
to establish extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release and denied the various motions.
(Id. No. 363). Among numerous other things, Judge Webber found that neither Blanks’ various
medical conditions nor his need to help care for his elderly grandmother constituted an
3

extraordinary and compelling reason (id. at 18-19). Judge Webber also reweighed the 18 U.S.C
§ 3553(a) factors and found that given the nature of circumstances of Blanks’ offense, he failed to
carry his burden for release. (Id. at 21). Blanks subsequently filed a number of pro se motions
seeking reconsider and for Judge Webber to recuse and disqualify himself (Crim. Case ECF Nos.
366, 367, 370, 371, 374). Judge Webber denied all of these motions and Blanks filed a notice of
appeal of the denial of his motions to recuse and disqualify. (Id. Nos. 376).
On October 3, 2022, the case was reassigned to this Court. (Id. No. 385). On October 28,
2022, the Eighth Circuit summarily affirmed Judge Webber’s denial of the motions to recuse and
disqualify himself from the case. (Id. No. 391). On December 27, 2022, the Eighth Circuit denied
Blanks’ petition for rehearing by the panel. (Id. No. 393). On December 6, 2021, the United States
Supreme Court denied Blanks’ petition for writ of certiorari. Blanks v. United States, 142 S. Ct.
596 (Mem.) (Dec. 6, 2021).
Meanwhile, on November 22, 2022, Blanks filed his 167-page Motion to Vacate, Set Aside
or Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 1). On December 28, 2022, Blanks filed
the instant Motion for Release Pending Disposition of Habeas Corpus and Expedited Ruling Due
to Medical Emergency (ECF No. 3). Blanks filed a Motion for Emergency Ruling of Motion for
Release on Bond Pending Disposition of Habeas Corpus in the Criminal Case on April 6, 2023
(Crim. Case ECF No. 395), and a Supplement to that motion (id. No. 396). Blanks filed a
Supplemental Motion in the instant § 2255 case on May 15, 2023 (ECF No. 20). The Court will
discuss all of Blanks’ motions, in the order they were filed.
Discussion
Blanks seeks release on bail pending a determination of his § 2255 habeas motion under
Martin v. Solem, 801 F.2d 324, 329 (8th Cir. 1986). “In spite of the lack of specific statutory
authorization, it is within the power of a District Court of the United States to enlarge a state
4

prisoner on bond pending hearing and decision on his application for a writ of habeas corpus.” Id.
(quoting In re Wainwright, 518 F.2d 173, 174 (5th Cir. 1975) (per curiam) (citations omitted)).
The power to release “applicants to bail pending the decision of their cases” is one “to be
exercised very sparingly.” Watson v. United States, 2020 WL 3832576, at *2 (E.D. Mo. July 8,
2020) (quoting Cherek v. United States, 767 F.2d 335, 337 (7th Cir. 1985)). “The reasons for
parsimonious exercise of the power should be obvious. A defendant whose conviction has been
affirmed on appeal . . . is unlikely to have been convicted unjustly; hence the case for bail pending
resolution of his postconviction proceeding is even weaker than the case for bail pending appeal.”
Cherek, 767 F.2d at 337. Further, release on bail is not favored in federal habeas corpus
proceedings because it “supplies the sought-after remedy before the merits of petitioner’s
application are determined.” Iuteri v. Nardoza, 662 F.2d 159, 161 (2d Cir. 1981).
To obtain release pending habeas review, the petitioner must overcome a “formidable
barrier.” Glynn v. Donnelly, 470 F.2d 95, 98 (1st Cir. 1972). The high standard applicable to
requests for release while a federal court considers a habeas petition “reflects the recognition that
a preliminary grant of bail is an exceptional form of relief in a habeas corpus proceeding.” Lucas
v. Hodden, 790 F.2d 365, 367 (3d Cir. 1986). In Martin v. Solem, the Eighth Circuit held that
release on bail pending disposition of a habeas petition “requires the habeas petitioner to show not
only a substantial federal constitutional claim that presents not merely a clear case on the law, but
a clear, and readily evident, case on the facts.” 801 F.2d at 329 (citation omitted). In addition, the
habeas petitioner must also show that there exists “some circumstance making the request
exceptional and deserving of special treatment in the interests of justice.” Id. (citation omitted).
Habeas petitioners are rarely granted release on bail pending disposition. Id. (holding that release
on bail was improperly granted).

5

Here, Blanks fails to meet his burden with respect to either requirement of the high standard
required by Martin. Based on the Court’s preliminary review of the twenty-three claims asserted
in Blanks’ § 2255 motion, the Court cannot say at this point that Blanks has shown the existence
of a substantial federal constitutional claim that presents a clear case on the law, much less one
that presents a “clear and readily evident” case on the facts. Blanks merely recites and reargues the
allegations he makes in support of his § 2255 motion. “[T]here is nothing unusual about a claim
of unlawful confinement in a habeas proceeding.” Martin, 801 F.2d at 330. Further, a number of
Blanks’ § 2255 claims could have been raised on direct appeal but were not, and therefore appear
to be procedurally barred. See United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 168 (1982). Because Blanks
fails to meet the first part of the high burden of proof set forth in the Martin v. Solem two-part test,
his motion must be denied. As a result, the Court need not address the second part of the test, but
will do so in the interest of judicial economy and making a full explanation of its decision.
Blanks also does not show exceptional circumstances making his request “deserving of
special treatment in the interests of justice.” Martin, 801 F.2d at 329. Blanks argues that his medical
conditions, including Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, asthma, reduced lung
volume, neuropathy nerve damage, untreated anxiety and depression, obesity, and untreated sleep
apnea, present exceptional circumstances. The Court does not agree, as Blanks does not establish
the existence of a medical emergency or other special circumstance.
Blanks previously offered his numerous medical conditions as grounds for compassionate
relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). The standards applicable to review of § 3582(c) motions present
an analogous context for a determination of exceptional circumstances deserving of special
treatment under the second part of the Martin test. Judge Webber concluded after careful review
of the extensive briefing and supporting exhibits that Blanks’ medical conditions did not constitute
exceptional circumstances for compassionate relief during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.
6

See Mem. and Order of Jan. 7, 2022 (ECF No. 363). At that time, Blanks’ BOP medical records
indicated he had current diagnoses for Type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy,
Hyperlipidemia (unspecified), anxiety disorder, hypertensive heart disease without heart failure,
allergic rhinitis, asthma, and gastro-esophageal reflux disease. (ECF No. 345). Blanks was
categorized as a Medical Care Level 2 by the BOP at that time, indicating stable, chronic care.
(Id.) There is nothing in the record to show that Blanks’ BOP medical care level has changed.
Blanks’ current motion emphasizes his untreated sleep apnea, which he describes as putting
him at risk of sudden death, particularly when considered in combination with his other medical
conditions listed above. In some of Blanks’ previously filed compassionate release motions, he
complained of not receiving a sleep study for suspected sleep apnea. Blanks was later diagnosed
with “mild mixed sleep apnea” after a sleep study conducted on December 13, 2021. (ECF No. 35). Recommendations included “nocturnal pressure therapy after a titration study.” (Id.) Now,
Blanks complains that he has not yet been issued a CPAP machine. Blanks also contends that FCI
Seagoville “is known for having inadequate health care in violation of the standard of health care,
including slow treatment, and allowing inmates to die from situations that could have been
prevented[.]” (ECF No. 3 at 10).
In a supplement to the motion (ECF No. 4), Blanks asserts that his mother suffers from
aortic stenosis, a heart condition that urgently requires surgery, and that she is sole caregiver to his
83-year-old grandmother and works full time as a registered nurse, which forces her to leave the
grandmother alone at night. Blanks asserts that there is no one else available to look after his
grandmother while his mother undergoes surgery and during her recovery, both women need him
there to be a caregiver, and he could get better health care and a CPAP machine.
In another supplement (ECF No. 5), Blanks submits a cardiologist’s Consultation Note
documenting an examination of his mother, Linda Padgitt, on January 4, 2023. The Consultation
7

Note states that Ms. Padgitt has, among other conditions, “severe aortic stenosis with valve
preserved systolic function” and was being referred to another doctor for a “possible TAVR.”
(ECF No. 5-1). According to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s website, TAVR
stands for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. “TAVR replaces an aortic valve that is not
working properly or is diseased with an aortic valve made from animal tissue. The TAVR
procedure is minimally invasive, requiring only a small cut in the skin. It does not require openheart surgery.” 2
Blanks’ Motion for Emergency Ruling of Motion for Release on Bond Pending Disposition
of Habeas Corpus (Crim. Case ECF No. 395) filed in the Criminal Case reiterates the points he
previously raised and includes a letter from Blanks that states his mother is “scheduled for open
heart surgery in May 2023, and could possibly not survive the procedure.” (Id. No. 395-1). Blanks
again states that his mother is the sole caregiver for his 84-year-old grandmother, who is
handicapped and requires assistance with her daily activities. (Id.) Blanks filed a Supplement to
this motion (id. No. 396) that consists of letters from his mother and grandmother. The
grandmother’s letter (dated April 3, 2023) states that her daughter will soon have open-heart
surgery and she is afraid to be alone without her during the surgery and recovery period because
she is elderly and handicapped. She asks that Blanks be released on bond so he can help her. (Id.
at 2). The mother’s letter (dated April 2, 2023) states she was scheduled for “mandatory cardiac
surgery” on April 13, 2023, is at risk of death if she does not have the surgery, and has no one to
look after her mother. She asks that Blanks be released to look after her and her mother during the
recovery period following surgery. (Id. at 4). There are no medical records, doctor’s notes, or other

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, “Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR),”
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/tavr (last visited May 18, 2023).
2

8

evidence submitted along with the letters. It is unknown whether Blanks’ mother has had surgery
as of the date of this Memorandum and Order.
Blanks’ Supplemental Motion (ECF No. 20) filed in this case primarily addresses the
merits of the claims in his § 2255 motion. (Id. at 2-22). Blanks also reiterates his exceptional and
rare circumstances for release as that “he can literally die if he remains in custody untreated for
his medical condition (sleep apnea),” and that “his mother needs to have an open heart surgery in
May, to avoid death according to her doctor, and is the only available[e] caregiver to his 84 year
old grandmother.” (Id. at 23). The Supplemental Motion does not include any exhibits or additional
medical records to support Blanks’ claim that his mother requires open-heart surgery in May. In a
letter attached to the Supplemental Motion, Blanks states that his mother’s open-heart surgery was
“postponed due to her need for a blood transfusion.” (ECF No. 20-1). While Blanks asserts that
his “family is willing to share [his mother’s] medical records with the Court,” (id.), Blanks has not
provided these records.
Blanks does not provide anything other than his own statements to establish that his
diagnosis of mild mixed sleep apnea places him at significant risk of sudden death absent treatment
with a CPAP machine. Blanks cites to numerous online sources for the well-established
propositions that sleep apnea can cause or exacerbate other health problems, including but not
limited to heart disease, diabetes, and high blood pressure, which Blanks suffers from. (ECF No.
20 at 25-26, 28). Blanks argues that people with sleep apnea have a higher risk of heart attack,
stroke, or death, and that he faces sudden death because he has not been provided a CPAP machine.
Blanks’ online sources indicate that an individual’s risk for serious health consequences
increases with the severity of their sleep apnea. See, e.g., American Academy of Sleep Medicine
(“AASM”) (ECF No. 20 at 26):
A study in the August 1 [2008] issue of the journal Sleep shows that people with
severe sleep apnea have a much higher mortality risk than people without sleep
9

apnea, and this risk of death increases when sleep apnea is untreated.
Results show that people who have severe sleep apnea, which involves frequent
breathing pauses during sleep, have three times the risk of dying due to any cause
compared with people who do not have sleep apnea. This sleep apnea risk is
represented by an adjusted hazard ratio of 3.2 after controlling for age, sex and body
mass index. 3
(Emphases added).
None of Blanks’ cited sources indicate that mild mixed sleep apnea places individuals at
high risk for sudden death absent CPAP treatment. More importantly, Blanks provides no medical
records or other information to support that he in fact faces such a risk and is thus facing a medical
emergency. Rather, this appears to be Blanks’ own interpretation of his medical condition based
on articles from the internet.
As a result, after careful consideration of the entire record as set forth in the various
compassionate release motions filed in the underlying criminal case in addition to the motions for
bail pending a decision in this case, the Court finds that Blanks’ medical conditions and lack of a
CPAP machine are not medical emergencies or exceptional circumstances making his request
“deserving of special treatment in the interests of justice.” Martin, 801 F.2d at 329.
Blanks’ assertion that he needs to help care for his elderly grandmother while his mother
undergoes surgery also does not constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting release on
bond. In addressing Blanks’ compassionate release motions, Judge Weber considered the related
argument that Blanks needed to help care for his elderly grandmother, but concluded the request
was not extraordinary and compelling. (ECF No. 363 at 18-19). In the compassionate release
context, “A defendant’s family circumstances constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons

AASM, “Study Shows that people with sleep apnea have a high risk of death,”
https://aasm.org/study-shows-that-people-with-sleep-apnea-have-a-high-risk-of-death (last visited May 18,
2023).
3

10

when ‘the caregiver of the defendant’s minor child or minor children’ dies or is incapacitated or
when ‘the defendant’s spouse or registered partner’ is incapacitated and ‘the defendant would be
the only available caregiver for the spouse or registered partner.’” United States v. Rodd, 966 F.3d
740, 747 (8th Cir. 2020) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 com. n.1(C)).
Although the Section 1B1.13 standard is not controlling here, the Court finds it instructive.
While the situation Blanks describes concerning his grandmother’s need for care during and after
his mother’s surgery is unfortunate, it is a matter that will have a limited duration, unlike the
situation where the caregiver of a minor child dies, or where a spouse or registered partner becomes
incapacitated. Further, there is nothing in the record to indicate there are no options for home health
services potentially available to assist Blanks’ grandmother with activities of daily living during
the time Blanks’ mother will be recovering, whether through Medicare, Medicaid, or a private
home health care provider. In sum, this difficult family circumstance is not exceptional or rare,
and the Court finds it does not make Blanks’ request for bond pending resolution of his §2255
Motion “deserving of special treatment in the interests of justice.” Martin, 801 F.2d at 329.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Blanks’ motions and supplemental motions for release pending
disposition of his § 2255 case are denied, including the motion filed in the underlying criminal
case, 4:16-CR-271 RLW. That motion will be denied by separate order in the criminal case.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Movant Jerris M. Blanks’ pro se Motion for Release
Pending Disposition of Habeas Corpus and Expedited Ruling Due to Medical Emergency (ECF

11

No. 3), and Supplemental Motion for Release Pending Disposition of Motion to Vacate and
Request for Expedited Ruling Due to Medical Emergency (ECF No. 20), are DENIED.

______________________________________
RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 19th day of May, 2023.

12