Full text
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 1 of 34
Michael R. Capps (Fed. Reg. No. 66142-509)
Federal Prison Camp - Florence
P. O. Box 5000
Florence, CO 81226
Inmate, Pro Se
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 22-CR-10073-EFM
Plaintiff,
SECOND MOTION FOR REDUCTION IN
v. SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §
3582(C)(1)(A)(I)
MICHAEL R. CAPPS,
Defendant.
(VERIFIED)
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mr. Michael R. Capps seeks immediate conversion of his remaining sentence to supervised
release due to a life-threatening cardiovascular crisis that has developed since this Court's February
2025 denial of his initial motion. Three critical developments compel relief:
Medical Emergency. Mr. Capps now faces hypertensive crisis with blood pressure
readings of 188/122 mmHg—exceeding clinical thresholds requiring emergency intervention to
prevent stroke or cardiac arrest. This crisis developed despite maximum pharmaceutical treatment
and results from severe sleep apnea (AHI 129.1 events/hour, oxygen drops to 52%) that cannot be
treated following destruction of his CPAP device and institutional barriers preventing replacement.
Institutional Inadequacy. FPC Florence has demonstrated systematic inability to provide
specialized care required for Mr. Capps' service-connected conditions. In contrast, his VA
Page 1 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 2 of 34
treatment progress documentation demonstrates comprehensive medical management and
monitoring of these same conditions prior to incarceration (Exhibit 8). Recent federal court
decisions at this facility (United States v. Bovis, March 2025; United States v. Paradis, January
2025) document a pattern of judicial intervention for inadequate medical care. Contemporary
inmates report similar medical record falsification and diagnostic failures during the same
timeframe as Mr. Capps' crisis.
Minimal Punishment Impact. Mr. Capps is already eligible for community custody as of
April 26, 2025. The requested relief would not materially reduce his punishment but would ensure
constitutionally adequate medical care through Department of Veterans Affairs coordination
during his remaining sentence.
The objective medical evidence—documented cardiovascular deterioration from Stage 2
hypertension in March to crisis levels in June—satisfies U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(C) requirements
and § 3553(a) factors supporting relief.
Page 2 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 3 of 34
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 1
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES ........................... 4
III. LEGAL STANDARD .............................................................................................................. 4
IV. EXTRAORDINARY AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES .................................. 5
A. Life-Threatening Medical Crisis Requiring Specialized Care .............................................. 5
1. Progressive Cardiovascular Deterioration ......................................................................... 6
2. Medical Literature and Expert Standards .......................................................................... 6
3. Institutional Inability to Provide Adequate Care ............................................................... 7
4. Contrast with Pre-Incarceration Medical Management ..................................................... 8
B. Institutional Inability to Provide Adequate Medical Care .................................................... 8
1. Operational Barriers to Effective Medical Care ................................................................ 8
2. Recognition of Inadequate Care ......................................................................................... 9
3. Systemic Resource Constraints and Budget-Driven Constitutional Violations ............... 10
4. Comparison with Proven Treatment Capabilities ............................................................ 12
5. Institutional Acknowledgment of Limitations and Congressional Deception …………. 12
C. Prison Falsification of Medical Records ............................................................................. 14
1. Evidence of Medical Record Falsification ....................................................................... 14
2. Pattern of Administrative Record Tampering: The Payne Evidence ............................... 14
3. Legal Significance Under Constitutional Law ................................................................. 15
4. Remedy Through Judicial Intervention ........................................................................... 16
D. Other Factors Supporting Relief Under § 1B1.13(b)(5) ..................................................... 17
1. Exceptional Rehabilitation Efforts and Programming Completion ................................. 17
2. Systematic Denial of Mental Health Treatment for Service-Connected PTSD ............... 18
3. Institutional Acknowledgment of Inadequate PTSD Treatment ...................................... 18
4. Systematic Violation of BOP Policy Requirements for Veteran-Specific Care .............. 20
5. Dangerous Medication Withdrawal Without Medical Supervision ................................. 21
6. Synergistic Risks from Testosterone Withdrawal ............................................................ 22
7. Combination of Circumstances Creating Urgent Need for Relief ................................... 25
V. CONSISTENCY WITH § 3553(a) SENTENCING FACTORS ....................................... 25
A. Nature and Circumstances of the Offense and Defendant's Characteristics ....................... 25
B. Adequate Punishment and Deterrence Already Achieved .................................................. 26
C. Need to Provide Medical Care in the Most Effective Manner ............................................ 27
D. Public Safety Considerations .............................................................................................. 28
E. Prevention of Disproportionate Punishment ....................................................................... 28
VI. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 29
PRAYER FOR RELIEF .............................................................................................................. 31
EXHIBIT LIST ............................................................................................................................ 33
Page 3 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 4 of 34
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
Mr. Capps was sentenced on May 11, 2023, to 27 months' imprisonment followed by two
years of supervised release. After exhausting his direct appeal, he surrendered to FPC Florence on
December 31, 2024. On February 14, 2025, this Court properly denied his initial motion for
compassionate release, finding insufficient evidence of extraordinary and compelling
circumstances after just 45 days of incarceration.
Assuming arguendo, the prior exhaustion does not apply, Mr. Capps has satisfied the
administrative exhaustion requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). On March 25, 2025, he
submitted a formal request for compassionate release to the Warden of FPC Florence, documenting
the medical circumstances detailed in this motion. The Warden denied this request on April 7,
2025.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), this Court may reduce a term of imprisonment upon
finding: (1) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant reduction; (2) such reduction is
consistent with Sentencing Commission policy statements; and (3) reduction is consistent with §
3553(a) factors. United States v. McGee, 992 F.3d 1035, 1042-43 (10th Cir. 2021).
The recently amended and broadened Sentencing Guidelines recognize circumstances as
being extraordinary and compelling when a defendant is "suffering from a medical condition that
requires long-term or specialized medical care that is not being provided and without which the
defendant is at risk of serious deterioration in health or death." U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(C). This
provision addresses circumstances where institutional medical capabilities are insufficient to
manage complex conditions requiring specialized intervention.
Page 4 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 5 of 34
The statute also grants district courts broad discretion in fashioning appropriate relief,
including conversion of remaining imprisonment to supervised release with appropriate
conditions. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
IV. EXTRAORDINARY AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES
Application of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(C) Policy Statement
Mr. Capps' circumstances fall within the Sentencing Guidelines policy statement at
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(C), which recognizes as extraordinary and compelling when a defendant
is "suffering from a medical condition that requires long-term or specialized medical care that is
not being provided and without which the defendant is at risk of serious deterioration in health or
death." This standard does not require that a defendant be terminally ill. The policy statement
establishes a two-part test: (1) the defendant requires specialized medical care that is not being
provided, and (2) without such care, the defendant faces risk of serious health deterioration. Both
elements are satisfied here.
A. Life-Threatening Medical Crisis Requiring Specialized Care
Mr. Capps suffers from severe obstructive sleep apnea documented by sleep study results
showing an Apnea-Hypopnea Index of 129.1 events per hour—a rate more than twenty times the
threshold for severe sleep apnea (Exhibit 1). During these episodes, his oxygen saturation drops to
52%, creating repeated cycles of oxygen deprivation that place extraordinary stress on his
cardiovascular system (Exhibit 1). This condition requires continuous positive airway pressure
(CPAP) therapy to maintain adequate oxygenation during sleep.
The medical emergency began on March 12, 2025, when a corrections officer deliberately
destroyed Mr. Capps' CPAP mask during a unit search (Exhibit 2, Exhibit 4, ¶¶25-27). Despite
immediate requests for replacement equipment documented in multiple inmate request forms
Page 5 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 6 of 34
(Exhibit 2), institutional barriers have prevented consistent CPAP therapy for over three months.
The facility's medical sick call operates only during a restrictive 30-minute window (0700-0730
hours) on a first-come, first-served basis (Exhibit 26), creating insurmountable obstacles for
inmates requiring urgent equipment replacement or complex medical consultation. To be clear:
despite public representations, FPC Florence (with 311 inmates as of July 11, 2025) regularly
offers only one sick call window, one time per week, for all inmates. BOP Health Services at the
lion camp generally does not read or reply to electronic cop-outs, and paper cop-outs are rejected
with instructions to attend sick call. This amounts to 311 inmates competing for roughly 6 second
windows of attention each week to address all medical issues.
1. Progressive Cardiovascular Deterioration
Objective blood pressure monitoring documents dangerous progression since this Court's
February denial, with crisis escalating through June 2025 (Exhibit 24):
Date Blood Pressure Clinical Significance
March 17, 2025 178/98 mmHg Stage 2 hypertension
March 19, 2025 182/91 mmHg Continued elevation
March 28, 2025 199/108 mmHg Approaching crisis threshold
June 11, 2025 188/122 mmHg Hypertensive crisis
June 25, 2025 196/97 mmHg Sustained crisis levels
June 26, 2025 198/104 mmHg Continued emergency
June 27, 2025 202/106 mmHg Severe Hypertensive Emergency
June 28, 2025 197/104 mmHg Persistent Crisis
June 29, 2025 206/102 mmHg Life-threatening levels
These readings demonstrate sustained hypertensive crisis over multiple weeks, with
systolic pressures exceeding 200 mmHg—levels requiring immediate emergency intervention to
prevent stroke or cardiac arrest (Exhibit 29). This crisis persists despite maximum dual therapy
with Lisinopril 40mg and Amlodipine 5mg daily (Exhibit 19), demonstrating that pharmaceutical
Page 6 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 7 of 34
treatment alone cannot address his underlying sleep disorder and that institutional care cannot
manage Mr. Capps' medical condition.
2. Medical Literature and Expert Standards
Mr. Capps' blood pressure readings exceed established emergency thresholds. The 2017
American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Hypertension Guidelines define
hypertensive crisis as blood pressure ≥180/120 mmHg, requiring immediate medical intervention
to prevent end-organ damage including stroke, heart attack, and kidney failure (Exhibit 29). Mr.
Capps' recent readings of 202/106 mmHg and 206/102 mmHg clearly exceed these emergency
thresholds.
Medical literature confirms the dangerous relationship between untreated sleep apnea and
resistant hypertension. Javaheri et al. (2017) documented significantly increased cardiovascular
mortality in patients with sleep apnea-related hypertension, particularly when oxygen saturations
drop below 80% as documented in Mr. Capps' case (Exhibit 1). The American Academy of Sleep
Medicine recognizes that sleep apnea with oxygen desaturations below 60% requires immediate
intervention to prevent sudden cardiac death.
3. Institutional Inability to Provide Adequate Care
The medical emergency began when corrections staff destroyed Mr. Capps' CPAP device
on March 12, 2025, during a unit search (Exhibits 2, 4 ¶¶25-27). Despite documented requests for
replacement (Exhibit 2), institutional barriers have prevented consistent CPAP therapy for over
three months. As previously described, the facility operates a restrictive once-a-week, 30-minute
sick call window (0700-0730 hours) that creates insurmountable obstacles for complex medical
equipment replacement and specialist consultation (Exhibit 26).
Page 7 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 8 of 34
Multiple witnesses document life-threatening episodes. Cellmate Chance Zabriskie
observed Mr. Capps "stop breathing for approximately one minute" followed by "violent choking
and physical thrashing" (Exhibit 20). Coworker Tommy Goss observed "labored breathing" and
"bluish lips" during a medical episode, with Mr. Capps stating he had been "getting worse since
they took away my meds" (Exhibit 13).
4. Contrast with Pre-Incarceration Medical Management
Prior to incarceration, Mr. Capps' sleep apnea and hypertension were successfully managed
through the Veterans Affairs healthcare system with integrated sleep medicine and cardiology care
(Exhibit 5). His blood pressure was controlled, and his sleep apnea was effectively treated with
properly maintained CPAP equipment and regular specialist monitoring. Pre-incarceration
psychiatric evaluation in September 2024 documented well-controlled symptoms with depression
and anxiety rated at only 2-3 on a 10-point severity scale under proper VA treatment (Exhibits 9).
The stark deterioration since incarceration demonstrates that his complex medical needs require
specialized care unavailable within the correctional setting.
The evidence establishes that Mr. Capps suffers from a medical condition requiring
specialized care that is not being adequately provided, creating imminent risk of serious health
deterioration or death as contemplated by U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(C).
B. Institutional Inability to Provide Adequate Medical Care
The evidence establishes that FPC Florence lacks the operational capacity and specialized
resources necessary to manage Mr. Capps' complex, interrelated medical conditions. This
institutional deficiency is demonstrated through systematic barriers that prevent effective
Page 8 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 9 of 34
treatment and a documented pattern of judicial intervention recognizing inadequate medical care
at the facility.
1. Operational Barriers to Effective Medical Care
FPC Florence operates under severe constraints that create insurmountable obstacles to
timely medical intervention. The facility's single weekly medical sick call schedule restricts inmate
access to a 30-minute window (0700-0730 hours) on a first-come, first-served basis (Exhibit 26).
For inmates with complex conditions requiring detailed evaluation, equipment replacement, or
specialist consultation, this operational framework renders effective care impossible.
The impact of these constraints is directly documented in Mr. Capps' case. Following the
March 12, 2025 destruction of his CPAP equipment (Exhibit 2, Exhibit 4, ¶¶25-27), he was unable
to obtain timely replacement despite the life-threatening nature of his condition. The restrictive
access window prevented the detailed consultation necessary to address his complex sleep apnea
management needs, contributing directly to the cardiovascular crisis documented in his blood
pressure monitoring log (Exhibit 24).
These operational limitations reflect resource constraints that prevent the facility from
providing the specialized care required for complex medical conditions. The institution lacks
dedicated sleep medicine specialists, cardiology consultation capabilities, and the infrastructure
necessary for comprehensive management of interrelated conditions like severe sleep apnea and
resistant hypertension. As medical unit orderly Christopher West directly observed, facility staff
have discussed "their inability to provide the specialized mental health care Mr. Capps requires"
(Exhibit 12), representing institutional acknowledgment of inadequate capabilities.
Page 9 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 10 of 34
2. Recognition of Inadequate Care
Recent federal court decisions demonstrate a pattern of judicial intervention at FPC
Florence due to inadequate medical care, establishing that the facility's deficiencies represent
systematic institutional failure rather than isolated incidents (Exhibit 11):
• United States v. Bovis, Case No. 20-cr-00204-WHO-2 (N.D. Cal. March 6, 2025): The
court granted compassionate release for hypertension management, finding the facility's
blood pressure treatment "incomprehensible and very far below standards" and concluding
that "a nine-month term should not become a life-threatening sentence."
• United States v. Paradis, Case No. 2:21-cr-00540-SB (C.D. Cal. January 15, 2025):
Compassionate release granted for inadequate brain tumor care, with the court expressing
"uncertainty surrounding BOP's ability to arrange" appropriate specialized treatment.
• United States v. Sosa, Case No. 2:20-CR-0073-DS (D. Utah December 2023): Release
granted for uncontrolled hypertension, with the court waiving administrative exhaustion
requirements due to the urgency of inadequate cardiovascular care.
The temporal concentration of these judicial interventions within fifteen months, all
involving inadequate management of serious medical conditions, establishes a systematic pattern
of institutional deficiency that cannot be remedied through continued administrative processes.
3. Systemic Resource Constraints and Budget-Driven Constitutional Violations
Mr. Capps' experience at FPC Florence reflects a nationwide crisis in federal prison
medical care driven by systematic budget constraints that compromise constitutional standards
across facilities. Recent authoritative research establishes that the operational barriers and resource
limitations documented in his case are not isolated institutional problems but part of a systematic
budget-driven approach that has created constitutional violations requiring judicial intervention.
3a. National Research Documenting Systematic Failures1
1
See Exhibit 28.
Page 10 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 11 of 34
The Vera Institute of Justice (January 2025) documented that "chronic underfunding of
federal prison medical services has created a nationwide crisis in constitutional healthcare delivery,
with facilities systematically unable to provide adequate staffing and resources for complex
medical conditions" (Exhibit 28). The Pew Charitable Trusts (October 2017) found that "budget-
driven staffing reductions in federal prison medical units have led to dangerous delays in treatment
and systematic rationing of care through operational barriers" (Exhibit 28). The Equal Justice
Initiative (May 2024) concluded that "fiscal pressures have created institutional incentives to
minimize medical needs through misclassification and denial of services rather than appropriate
treatment" (Exhibit 28).
3b. Direct Application to FPC Florence's Documented Failures
These research findings directly explain the systematic failures documented in Mr. Capps' case:
• Operational Barriers as Cost-Saving Measures: The restrictive 30-minute sick call
window, once per week, that prevented timely CPAP replacement (Exhibit 26) represents
precisely the type of "operational barriers" that Pew identifies as budget-driven measures
that create "dangerous delays in treatment." This operational constraint transforms what
should be routine medical equipment replacement into an insurmountable bureaucratic
obstacle.
• Resource Scarcity Preventing Adequate Care: The facility's inability to provide
specialized sleep medicine consultation or maintain adequate CPAP replacement protocols
demonstrates the resource scarcity that the Vera Institute identifies as systematically
compromising care for "complex medical conditions." Mr. Capps' severe sleep apnea with
oxygen desaturations to 52% clearly constitutes such a complex condition requiring
specialized resources unavailable due to budget constraints.
Page 11 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 12 of 34
• Misclassification to Minimize Costs: Mr. Capps' initial classification as Mental Health
Care Level 1 (CARE1-MH) despite his 70% VA PTSD disability rating exemplifies the
Equal Justice Initiative's finding that "fiscal pressures create incentives to minimize
medical needs through misclassification." This administrative decision reduces treatment
costs while violating BOP Policy Statement 5242.01 requirements for veteran-specific
care.
• Systematic Rationing Through Administrative Barriers: The documented delays in
medication provision (Venlafaxine prescribed but not provided until mid-April) and
equipment replacement represent the "rationing of care" that research identifies as budget-
driven constitutional violations rather than legitimate medical decisions.
3c Institutional Pattern Confirms Systematic Crisis
The pattern of recent judicial interventions at FPC Florence (Bovis, Paradis, Sosa) now
appears in this research context as evidence that budget-driven neglect has reached crisis levels
requiring systematic judicial oversight. The temporal concentration of these cases within fifteen
months, all involving inadequate management of complex medical conditions, demonstrates that
resource constraints have created systematic constitutional violations that cannot be remedied
through administrative processes designed to minimize rather than address medical needs.
4. Comparison with Proven Treatment Capabilities
Mr. Capps' medical conditions were successfully managed through the Veterans Affairs
healthcare system prior to incarceration (Exhibit 5). The VA's integrated approach documented in
his medical records included:
Page 12 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 13 of 34
• Specialized sleep medicine monitoring with regular CPAP equipment maintenance
and replacement
• Coordinated cardiology care addressing the relationship between sleep apnea and
hypertension
• Comprehensive medication management with appropriate titration and monitoring
(Exhibit 10)
• Regular specialist follow-up ensuring optimal treatment outcomes
Pre-incarceration psychiatric evaluation in September 2024 documented controlled
symptoms with depression and anxiety rated at only 2-3 on a 10-point severity scale under proper
VA treatment (Exhibits 8 and 9). The stark contrast between Mr. Capps' pre-incarceration medical
stability and his current crisis (Exhibit 24) demonstrates that effective treatment requires
specialized resources and coordinated care unavailable within the correctional setting.
5. Institutional Acknowledgment of Treatment Limitations and Congressional Deception
The facility's inability to provide adequate care is further evidenced by institutional
acknowledgments of treatment limitations, combined with misleading representations to
congressional oversight. Medical staff have been observed discussing their inability to provide the
specialized care Mr. Capps requires (Exhibit 12), yet the BOP simultaneously assured Senator
Lankford that "Mr. Capps has been in regular communication with Psychology and departmental
staff are available at the Camp" and that the facility is "equipped with necessary resources"
(Exhibit 27).
This stark contradiction between internal acknowledgments of inadequate capabilities and
external assurances to Congress demonstrates institutional awareness of deficiencies combined
with systematic misrepresentation to oversight authorities. The destruction of medical equipment
without adequate replacement protocols (Exhibit 2), combined with operational barriers
preventing timely intervention (Exhibit 26), demonstrates systematic institutional failure to
maintain the medical infrastructure necessary for constitutional care.
Page 13 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 14 of 34
The totality of evidence establishes that FPC Florence cannot provide the long-term,
specialized medical care required for Mr. Capps' complex conditions, satisfying the institutional
inadequacy component of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(C) and necessitating judicial intervention to
prevent serious health deterioration or death.
The combination of documented policy violations (Program Statement 5242.01), resource
constraints preventing adequate care, and misleading congressional representations demonstrates
a systematic institutional approach that prioritizes cost containment and oversight avoidance over
constitutional compliance. When viewed in the context of national research documenting budget-
driven healthcare rationing across federal facilities (Exhibit 28), Mr. Capps' case represents the
predictable result of systematic policy choices that have transformed isolated medical inadequacies
into widespread constitutional violations requiring judicial intervention to protect individual
inmates' constitutional rights.
C. Prison Falsification of Medical Records
A troubling aspect of Mr. Capps' case—transforming it from medical negligence to
deliberate constitutional violation—is the documented fabrication of medical records by facility
staff, subsequently confirmed by institutional administration.
1. Evidence of Medical Record Falsification
On February 19, 2025, Nurse Practitioner Maltezo presented Mr. Capps with medical
records purporting to document a physician examination of a "healthy 47-year-old male"
conducted on January 8, 2025 (Exhibit 4, ¶¶17-20). This record contained a factual impossibility:
Page 14 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 15 of 34
Mr. Capps did not turn 47 years old until January 17, 2025—nine days after the alleged
examination date (Exhibit 4, ¶20).
When Mr. Capps challenged this discrepancy, clinic administrator Ms. Alvarado explicitly
confirmed that "no physician encounter with Mr. Capps occurred on that date" (Exhibit 4, ¶39).
This institutional acknowledgment, documented contemporaneously in Mr. Capps' March 26,
2025 Inmate Request form, establishes that facility staff created fictitious records (Exhibit 2).
2. Pattern of Administrative Record Tampering: The Payne Evidence
Contemporaneous evidence from another inmate establishes that medical record
falsification at FPC Florence reflects a pattern of unreliable administrative practices, undermining
the facility’s credibility. On June 16, 2025, inmate David H. Payne, a licensed medical doctor,
submitted a BP-9 Administrative Remedy form alleging that health services staff “falsified
documents alleging a contrast allergy” to conceal errors in his diagnostic examinations (Exhibit
31, Payne’s Original BP-9 Form). When staff returned the processed form, they had altered it using
correction fluid to remove the phrase “then falsified documents alleging a contrast allergy,”
fundamentally changing the complaint’s substance (Exhibit 32, Payne’s Declaration, ¶11,
comparing original and altered BP-9 forms).
This tampering with an official administrative remedy document—intended to document
constitutional violations—demonstrates deliberate interference with the grievance process courts
rely on to ensure adequate care. Payne’s declaration, supported by physical evidence of the altered
form, establishes that the alteration was not a clerical error but an intentional act to conceal
misconduct (Exhibit 32, ¶11). As a physician, Payne’s professional expertise lends additional
weight to his allegations, distinguishing this from routine inmate complaints. This incident,
occurring within weeks of Mr. Capps’ falsified medical record (Exhibit 4, ¶20, noting incorrect
Page 15 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 16 of 34
age in January 8, 2025, record), aligns with similar judicial findings of inadequate care at FPC
Florence in United States v. Bovis (March 2025) (Exhibit 11, Court Order), suggesting a facility-
wide issue.
Under Smith v. Jenkins, 919 F.2d 90, 93 (8th Cir. 1990), intentional alteration of medical
records to conceal inadequate care constitutes deliberate indifference by demonstrating “obduracy
and wantonness.” The Payne tampering, combined with Mr. Capps’ case, renders the
administrative remedy process unreliable, necessitating judicial intervention under 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(1)(A). Even if BOP claims the alteration was unintentional, such reckless disregard for
accurate record-keeping violates constitutional standards, as recognized in Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). This pattern of unreliable practices directly contradicts BOP’s
assurances to Congress of adequate medical oversight (Exhibit 27), justifying relief to ensure Mr.
Capps’ access to VA-coordinated care.
3. Legal Significance Under Constitutional Law
The deliberate creation of false medical records constitutes powerful evidence of deliberate
indifference under Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). As the Eighth Circuit recognized
in Smith v. Jenkins, 919 F.2d 90, 93 (8th Cir. 1990), the intentional alteration or fabrication of
medical records to conceal inadequate care transforms medical negligence into constitutional
violation by demonstrating "obduracy and wantonness" rather than mere "inadvertence or error in
good faith."
The fabrication at issue here occurred precisely when Mr. Capps sought to document his
medical needs and obtain appropriate treatment—the very administrative processes that courts rely
upon to ensure constitutional care. By creating false records suggesting adequate medical
Page 16 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 17 of 34
evaluation had occurred, facility staff actively undermined Mr. Capps' ability to demonstrate his
medical needs through established grievance procedures.
This fabrication is particularly concerning because it occurred while the Bureau of Prisons
was simultaneously assuring congressional oversight that the facility maintains "credentialed
medical and mental health professionals" providing adequate care (Exhibit 27). The contradiction
between institutional assurances to Congress and the documented falsification of medical records
demonstrates systemic failures in oversight that compromise the facility's ability to provide
constitutionally adequate care.
The fabrication also directly contradicts the facility's representation that inmates can access
adequate medical care through established procedures. Creating false documentation of medical
encounters that never occurred demonstrates institutional willingness to deceive rather than
provide constitutionally adequate care.
4. Remedy Through Judicial Intervention
When facility staff create false documentation suggesting adequate medical care has been
provided, they render the administrative remedy process meaningless and necessitate direct
judicial intervention. The fabrication establishes that Mr. Capps cannot obtain constitutional
medical care through administrative processes, as those processes have been corrupted by
institutional deception.
This documented falsification, combined with the objective medical evidence of
deteriorating condition, establishes deliberate indifference requiring immediate judicial
intervention under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(C).
Page 17 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 18 of 34
D. Other Factors Supporting Relief Under § 1B1.13(b)(5)
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(5) recognizes that "any other circumstances or combination of
circumstances that, when considered by themselves or together with any of the reasons described
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4), are similar in gravity and urgency to the circumstances described
in those paragraphs" may constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons for sentence reduction.
Mr. Capps presents additional circumstances that, individually and in combination with his life-
threatening medical conditions, support compassionate release.
1. Exceptional Rehabilitation Efforts and Programming Completion
Despite the medical crisis and institutional barriers documented above, Mr. Capps has
demonstrated extraordinary commitment to rehabilitation during his incarceration. He has
completed or enrolled in numerous programs including Thresholds, Non-Residential RDAP, 7
Habits of Highly Effective People, Basic Cognitive Thinking, Drug Education, Business
Management and Veteran’s Reentry Program (Exhibit 4, ¶6). This programming completion
occurred while navigating the systematic medical neglect and operational barriers that have
prevented adequate treatment of his service-connected conditions.
Mr. Capps' rehabilitation efforts are particularly significant given his status as a first-time,
non-violent offender who voluntarily surrendered and has demonstrated consistent respect for
institutional rules and judicial authority. His participation in veterans-specific programming shows
commitment to addressing the underlying issues related to his military service and service-
connected disabilities.
2. Systematic Denial of Mental Health Treatment for Service-Connected PTSD
Page 18 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 19 of 34
Mr. Capps suffers from service-connected Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder with a 70% VA
disability rating (Exhibit 5), yet has been systematically denied adequate mental health treatment
despite explicit BOP policy requirements for veteran-specific care. He submitted at least fourteen
documented requests for mental health intervention between January 2 and March 13, 2025,
explicitly referencing BOP Policy Statement 5242.01 requiring veteran-specific care (Exhibit 6).
The facility's misclassification of Mr. Capps as Mental Health Care Level 1 (CARE1-MH)
despite his 70% VA PTSD rating represents institutional minimization of his treatment needs.
Fellow veterans housed with him provide compelling testimony about his deteriorating mental
health condition:
• Gary Franks observes that "Mr. Capps freaked out at count time, when an officer rattled
his keys" and "eats alone in his cell and has a fear of common areas" (Exhibit 14)
• William Wolgamott documents "a severe panic attack during the 4:00 AM count when an
officer's keys rattled unexpectedly" and notes that Mr. Capps "has progressively withdrawn
from the common areas" (Exhibit 15)
• Christopher West, a medical unit employee, provides particularly damaging testimony that
he "overheard medical staff discussing their inability to provide the specialized mental
health care Mr. Capps requires" (Exhibit 12). This direct institutional acknowledgment of
inadequate capabilities, combined with the BOP's simultaneous assurances to Congress of
adequate resources (Exhibit 27), demonstrates systematic deception regarding the facility's
actual treatment limitations.
The contrast between Mr. Capps' pre-incarceration mental health stability under VA care
(depression/anxiety rated 2-3/10 in September 2024) (Exhibit 9) and his current deterioration
demonstrates that his PTSD requires specialized treatment unavailable within the institutional
setting.
3. Institutional Acknowledgment of Inadequate PTSD Treatment
FPC Florence’s failure to provide evidence-based treatment for Mr. Capps’ service-
connected PTSD is compounded by institutional acknowledgment of proper standards coupled
Page 19 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 20 of 34
with a policy-driven refusal to implement them. On March 7, 2025, during a documented meeting,
FPC Florence psychologist Dr. T. Short made admissions that establish both knowledge of clinical
requirements and deliberate non-compliance (Exhibit 4, ¶¶2-6, Declaration of Michael R. Capps).
Dr. Short confirmed that Bureau of Prisons (BOP) policy prohibits trauma-based therapies, such
as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and imagery rescripting, despite acknowledging these as
“first-line treatments for PTSD per VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guidelines.” She provided Mr.
Capps with nightmare treatment worksheets but stated that BOP policy prevents her from offering
the therapist-guided sessions necessary for their effective implementation. (Exhibit 4.)
This policy-driven refusal violates BOP Program Statement 5242.01, which mandates
veteran-specific care for inmates with service-connected disabilities like Mr. Capps’ 70% VA-
rated PTSD (Exhibit 5, VA Rating Decision). Under Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976),
institutional knowledge of a serious medical need combined with conscious disregard constitutes
deliberate indifference. Dr. Short’s admissions satisfy both elements: (1) awareness of evidence-
based PTSD treatment standards, and (2) a policy-based choice to withhold such care, despite Mr.
Capps’ documented deterioration (Exhibit 6, Mental Health Treatment Requests).
Moreover, Dr. Short’s statements contradict BOP’s April 18, 2025, assurance to Senator
James Lankford that FPC Florence maintains adequate mental health resources (Exhibit 27, BOP
Response to Congressional Inquiry). This discrepancy suggests a pattern of misrepresentation that
undermines the facility’s ability to provide constitutionally adequate care. Even if BOP attributes
the policy prohibition to resource constraints, such limitations do not excuse Eighth Amendment
violations, as recognized in Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 511 (2011). Mr. Capps’ pre-
incarceration stability under VA care, with depression and anxiety rated at 2-3/10 (Exhibit 9,
September 2024 Psychiatric Evaluation), contrasts sharply with his current withdrawal and panic
Page 20 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 21 of 34
attacks (Exhibits 14, 15), underscoring the urgent need for judicial intervention to restore access
to VA-coordinated treatment.
4. Systematic Violation of BOP Policy Requirements for Veteran-Specific Care
Mr. Capps' PTSD treatment deficiencies are compounded by FPC Florence's systematic
violation of explicit BOP policy requirements mandating veteran-specific healthcare. BOP
Program Statement 5242.01 specifically requires that "veteran-specific care" must be available at
all facilities housing inmates with service-connected disabilities. This policy directive recognizes
that veterans with combat-related conditions require specialized treatment approaches that differ
from standard prison mental health protocols.
Despite this clear mandate, Mr. Capps has submitted at least fourteen documented requests
for mental health intervention between January 2 and March 13, 2025, explicitly referencing
Program Statement 5242.01 and noting that "The VA treatment plan included therapy, medication
and service animal. The BOP has taken all three away and offering zero alternative care in violation
of PS 5242.01" (Exhibit 6). These requests demonstrate not only Mr. Capps' awareness of his
policy-protected rights but also the facility's systematic disregard for mandatory veteran care
requirements.
The policy violation is particularly egregious given Mr. Capps' 70% VA disability rating
for service-connected PTSD (Exhibit 5), which establishes both the severity of his condition and
its direct connection to military service. The facility's misclassification of Mr. Capps as Mental
Health Care Level 1 (CARE1-MH) despite this substantial disability rating represents institutional
minimization of policy-mandated care requirements designed to protect disabled veterans.
This systematic policy non-compliance stands in stark contrast to the BOP's assurances to
Senator Lankford that "Mr. Capps has been in regular communication with Psychology and
Page 21 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 22 of 34
departmental staff are available at the Camp" and that the facility maintains adequate resources for
veteran care (Exhibit 27). The documentary evidence of repeated requests citing specific policy
requirements, combined with institutional denial of mandated services, demonstrates deliberate
disregard for veteran-specific protections established by the BOP's own regulations.
The violation of Program Statement 5242.01 transforms this case from general medical
inadequacy to deliberate institutional failure to follow mandatory procedures designed to ensure
constitutional care for service members who sacrificed for their country. When combined with the
medical crisis documented above, this policy violation establishes a pattern of institutional
indifference that cannot be remedied through continued administrative processes that have already
proven ineffective despite explicit regulatory mandates.
5. Dangerous Medication Withdrawal Without Medical Supervision
The FPC Florence’s abrupt discontinuation of Mr. Capps’ VA-prescribed medication
regimen, without proper tapering or medical oversight, has created cascading health risks that
compound his cardiovascular emergency. Prior to incarceration, the Department of Veterans
Affairs successfully managed Mr. Capps’ interrelated conditions—sleep apnea, PTSD,
hypertension, and obesity—through a coordinated regimen that maintained his physiological
stability (Exhibit 10, VA Medication Records). The facility’s systematic withdrawal of these
medications, without VA consultation or alternative treatment, violates BOP Program Statement
5242.01’s mandate for veteran-specific care and demonstrates deliberate indifference under Estelle
v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). The following medications were discontinued, each
contributing to Mr. Capps’ deteriorating health:
• Venlafaxine 225mg: Prescribed for PTSD and depression, discontinued without tapering,
causing withdrawal symptoms including dizziness and cardiovascular instability. Despite re-
Page 22 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 23 of 34
prescription, delivery was delayed until mid-April 2025, exacerbating symptoms (Exhibit 19,
FPC Florence Medical Records).
• Armodafinil 200mg: Used to manage daytime sleepiness from sleep apnea, discontinued
without replacement, resulting in severe fatigue that impairs daily functioning (Exhibit 19).
• Testosterone 150mg: Administered for hormonal stability, critical for cardiovascular and
mental health, discontinued without monitoring, leading to a severe deficiency detailed below
(Exhibit 19).
• Semaglutide 2.4mg: Enabled an 87-pound weight loss that improved sleep apnea and
hypertension. Its discontinuation has caused rapid weight gain, worsening airway obstruction
and cardiovascular stress (Exhibit 19).
The cumulative effect of these discontinuations, without clinical justification or
supervision, has transformed manageable conditions into a life-threatening crisis, as evidenced by
Mr. Capps’ blood pressure escalation from 178/98 mmHg in March to 206/102 mmHg in June
2025 (Exhibit 24, Blood Pressure Monitoring Log). The testosterone withdrawal, in particular,
poses a quantifiable mortality risk that exemplifies the facility’s reckless disregard for Mr. Capps’
health.
6. Synergistic Risks from Testosterone Withdrawal
The abrupt discontinuation of Mr. Capps’ testosterone replacement therapy has created a
severe cardiovascular risk, amplifying his hypertensive crisis. Prior to incarceration, VA-
prescribed therapy maintained his testosterone at 900 ng/dL, supporting cardiovascular and mental
health stability (Exhibit 10, VA Medication Records). Following discontinuation at FPC Florence,
his levels plummeted to 106 ng/dL, an 88% decline placing him in a severe deficiency range.
Page 23 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 24 of 34
A 2012 Veterans Affairs study by Shores et al., published in the Journal of Clinical
Endocrinology & Metabolism, found that men with testosterone levels ≤250 ng/dL face a 20.7%
mortality rate compared to 10.3% for treated patients, primarily due to cardiovascular events
(Exhibit 30, Shores et al. Study, p. 1729). Mr. Capps, at 106 ng/dL and sharing the study’s veteran
demographic (male, mid-40s, with comorbidities), falls in the highest-risk category. This risk is
amplified by synergistic effects of untreated conditions: severe sleep apnea (causing low oxygen
levels during sleep), PTSD nightmares (increasing cardiovascular stress), and rapid weight gain
from Semaglutide discontinuation (worsening airway obstruction) (Exhibits 1, 6, 19). The blood
pressure log confirms a corresponding deterioration, escalating from 178/98 mmHg in March to
206/102 mmHg in June 2025, with symptoms of dizziness and headaches (Exhibit 24).
Under Estelle v. Gamble, the facility’s failure to taper or monitor testosterone therapy,
despite known risks, constitutes deliberate indifference. This reckless decision, made without VA
consultation, mirrors the unprofessional record-keeping documented in Section IV.D (Prison
Falsification of Medical Records) and violates BOP Program Statement 5242.01’s veteran-specific
care mandate. Even if BOP claims a clinical rationale for discontinuation, the absence of
monitoring or alternative treatment deviates from standard care, as evidenced by the VA’s prior
success. This synergistic crisis, untreatable within FPC Florence, necessitates conversion to
supervised release with VA-coordinated care to prevent irreversible harm.
6a. Documentation of Withdrawal Effects
The consequences of this systematic medication withdrawal are now documented through
multiple sources. Tommy Goss observed Mr. Capps during a medical episode stating "Been getting
worse since they took away my meds... dizzy all the time" (Exhibit 13). The blood pressure
monitoring log provides objective evidence of cardiovascular deterioration following medication
Page 24 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 25 of 34
discontinuation, with readings of 183/97 mmHg on March 18 accompanied by documented
symptoms of "headache, dizziness" that correspond precisely to recognized Venlafaxine
withdrawal syndrome (Exhibit 24).
The timing correlation between medication withdrawal and blood pressure crisis is
medically significant. Mr. Capps' cardiovascular deterioration from 178/98 mmHg in March to
crisis levels of 188/122 mmHg in June directly follows the systematic removal of medications that
had successfully maintained his physiological stability for four years (Exhibits 10, 24).
6b. Deliberate Indifference in Medication Management
Even when the facility belatedly recognized the need for psychiatric medication
replacement, their response demonstrated deliberate indifference to medical necessity. Despite
prescribing Venlafaxine to address withdrawal symptoms, staff inexplicably directed that the
medication "not start until mid April (15th)" - a month-long delay despite documented dangerous
withdrawal effects (Exhibit 2, Exhibit 19). This delay in providing critical medication that Mr.
Capps had been stably maintained on for four years at maximum therapeutic dosage represents the
paradigmatic deliberate indifference recognized in Estelle v. Gamble.
The systematic withdrawal of Semaglutide is particularly concerning given its role in Mr.
Capps' 87-pound weight loss, which directly improved his sleep apnea by reducing airway
obstruction. The discontinuation of this medication without medical assessment has contributed to
weight gain that exacerbates the very condition creating his cardiovascular crisis - a medically
contraindicated decision that demonstrates institutional disregard for the interconnected nature of
his medical conditions.
6c. Constitutional Implications
Page 25 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 26 of 34
The combination of systematic medication withdrawal without proper tapering,
documented withdrawal symptoms, month-long delays in replacement medications, and objective
evidence of cardiovascular deterioration establishes deliberate indifference that violates the Eighth
Amendment. This medication mismanagement compounds the sleep apnea crisis by removing
therapeutic interventions that had successfully maintained Mr. Capps' stability, creating a
cascading medical emergency that demonstrates institutional inability to provide constitutionally
adequate care for complex medical conditions requiring integrated treatment approaches.
7. Combination of Circumstances Creating Urgent Need for Relief
These additional circumstances, when considered together with Mr. Capps' life-threatening
sleep apnea and cardiovascular crisis, create a combination of factors similar in gravity and
urgency to the primary medical circumstances outlined in § 1B1.13(b)(1). The systematic denial
of veteran-specific mental health care, dangerous medication withdrawal, and exceptional
rehabilitation efforts demonstrate that Mr. Capps presents the type of unique circumstances
contemplated by the "other factors" provision.
The combination of service-connected medical and mental health conditions, systematic
institutional failures across multiple areas of care, exceptional rehabilitation efforts, and eligibility
for community custody creates circumstances that collectively warrant compassionate release
under § 1B1.13(b)(5).
Moreover, the documented fabrication of medical records (Section IV.C) combined with
these additional circumstances demonstrates institutional bad faith that transforms individual
medical neglect into systematic constitutional violation requiring judicial intervention. The totality
of circumstances establishes that Mr. Capps cannot obtain adequate care through administrative
processes and faces imminent risk of serious health deterioration without immediate relief.
Page 26 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 27 of 34
V. CONSISTENCY WITH § 3553(A) SENTENCING FACTORS
The § 3553(a) factors strongly support converting Mr. Capps' remaining sentence to
supervised release with medical conditions.
A. Nature and Circumstances of the Offense and Defendant's
Characteristics
Mr. Capps is a first-time, non-violent offender serving a 27-month sentence for COVID-
19 relief fraud. He voluntarily surrendered as ordered on December 31, 2024 (Exhibit 4, ¶2),
demonstrating respect for this Court's authority and the legal process. During his approximately
six plus months of incarceration, he has participated in rehabilitation programming including
business management courses, drug education, cognitive thinking programs, and veterans' reentry
preparation (Exhibit 4, ¶6).
Mr. Capps' status as a disabled combat veteran with service-connected medical conditions
weighs heavily in favor of relief. His 70% PTSD disability rating and 50% sleep apnea rating from
the Department of Veterans Affairs establish that these conditions resulted from his military
service to his country (Exhibit 5). The current medical crisis represents a direct consequence of
conditions incurred during honorable military service, warranting special consideration under the
statutory framework.
As fellow veteran Gary Franks, housed at the same facility, observes: "I encourage the
court to assist Mike in any way possible, as anyone with his history of service deserves to receive
the care he needs, which is not provided in this facility" (Exhibit 14). Multiple veterans have
documented Mr. Capps' deteriorating condition and the facility's inability to provide adequate care
for service-connected disabilities (Exhibits 14, 15).
B. Adequate Punishment and Deterrence Already Achieved
Page 27 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 28 of 34
Mr. Capps is already eligible for placement in a Residential Reentry Center or home
confinement under the Bureau of Prisons’ community custody policies, effective as of April 26,
2025. This institutional determination reflects a core reality: even under a full application of federal
punishment policies and incentive programs, Mr. Capps has served sufficient time in institutional
custody to satisfy the primary penal objectives of his sentence. The requested relief—conversion
to supervised release with medical conditions—would not circumvent accountability. Rather, it
would implement the very transition already authorized by BOP policy while addressing a medical
emergency that cannot be treated inside the facility.
Mr. Capps has now served over six months of his 27-month sentence. Though modest in
duration relative to the full term, his incarceration has been marked by conditions that far exceed
those anticipated at sentencing. He has endured not only the ordinary loss of liberty and separation
from family, but also severe and ongoing physical suffering caused by systemic medical neglect.
The progressive hypertensive crisis he now faces—as documented in Exhibit 24 and reflected in
daily blood pressure readings surpassing 200/100 mmHg—has introduced a level of risk and
deprivation that transforms the nature of his punishment.
These conditions do not advance the objectives of deterrence or rehabilitation. They
undermine them.
The public consequences of Mr. Capps' conviction remain substantial: reputational harm,
professional disqualification, public awareness, and substantial restitution obligations continue to
serve as enduring deterrents. Moreover, the two-year term of supervised release already imposed
by this Court will continue to ensure structured oversight and accountability.
The requested sentence modification does not diminish the seriousness of the offense or
reduce the length of the custodial term. It merely ensures that the remainder of Mr. Capps’ sentence
Page 28 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 29 of 34
can be served in a setting capable of meeting his urgent and well-documented medical needs—
needs that the current institutional setting has proven repeatedly unable to address (Exhibits 10,
19, 24, 31, 32). Under these circumstances, this § 3553(a) factor favors relief.
C. Need to Provide Medical Care in the Most Effective Manner
Section 3553(a)(2)(D) specifically requires providing medical care "in the most effective
manner." The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates institutional care cannot manage Mr. Capps'
life-threatening conditions. Maximum antihypertensive therapy has failed to control blood
pressure readings reaching 206/102 mmHg (Exhibit 24), while operational barriers prevent
adequate CPAP management (Exhibit 26).
In contrast, the Veterans Affairs system successfully managed these conditions pre-
incarceration through integrated specialty care, as documented by his comprehensive treatment
progress records and controlled symptoms in September 2024 psychiatric evaluation
(depression/anxiety at 2-3/10 severity) (Exhibit 8, Exhibit 9). VA coordination provides the
specialized sleep medicine and cardiology consultation required for his complex, interrelated
conditions.
D. Public Safety Considerations
Mr. Capps presents minimal risk to public safety. His offense involved financial fraud with
no violence or threat to physical safety. He has no history of violent crime, substance abuse, or
behavior suggesting danger to the community. His military service record, documented service-
connected medical conditions, and disability status further support his low risk profile (Exhibit 5,
Exhibit 8).
Supervised release with medical conditions would actually enhance public safety by
ensuring Mr. Capps receives appropriate treatment for his service-connected PTSD and other
Page 29 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 30 of 34
conditions that, if left untreated, could contribute to future difficulties. His documented requests
for mental health treatment (Exhibit 6) and the facility's systematic failure to provide adequate
psychiatric care demonstrate that continued incarceration without proper treatment poses greater
long-term risk than supervised release with comprehensive VA medical monitoring.
The comprehensive oversight provided through supervised release, combined with VA
medical monitoring, would provide greater accountability than continued incarceration under
medically inadequate conditions that have been documented to worsen his underlying conditions
.
E. Prevention of Disproportionate Punishment
The documented medical crisis has transformed Mr. Capps' lawful sentence into
punishment that exceeds constitutional limits. His current condition, with blood pressure readings
in the hypertensive crisis range despite maximum treatment (Exhibit 24, Exhibit 29), creates
imminent risk of stroke, cardiac arrest, or death that would render his sentence disproportionately
severe.
Courts have recognized that sentences should not become de facto death sentences due to
inadequate medical care. The objective medical evidence—including sleep study documentation
showing oxygen desaturations to 52% (Exhibit 1) and progressive cardiovascular deterioration
(Exhibit 24)—establishes that continued incarceration poses substantial risk of permanent injury
or death that would constitute punishment far exceeding this Court's intent and the statutory
purposes of sentencing.
The documented fabrication of medical records (Exhibit 4, Exhibits 31-32) combined with
institutional barriers to care (Exhibit 26) demonstrate that Mr. Capps cannot obtain constitutional
Page 30 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 31 of 34
medical treatment through administrative processes, necessitating judicial intervention to prevent
irreversible harm.
This Court need not rewrite the sentence. The Bureau of Prisons has already conceded the
defendant does not require secure confinement.
Conversion to supervised release with medical conditions would restore proportionality to
Mr. Capps' sentence by ensuring he serves the remaining term under conditions that do not pose
imminent threat to his life while maintaining appropriate accountability through judicial oversight
and VA medical monitoring.
The § 3553(a) factors collectively support the conclusion that extraordinary and compelling
circumstances warrant conversion of Mr. Capps' remaining sentence to supervised release with
appropriate medical conditions.
VI. CONCLUSION
Mr. Capps presents extraordinary and compelling medical circumstances that have
materially changed since this Court's February 2025 denial. The objective evidence establishes a
cardiovascular emergency requiring immediate judicial intervention.
The Medical Crisis is Undeniable. Blood pressure readings of 206/102 mmHg and
202/106 mmHg in late June 2025 exceed all clinical thresholds for hypertensive emergency
(Exhibit 24). These readings, documented over consecutive days, create imminent risk of stroke,
cardiac arrest, or irreversible organ damage despite maximum pharmaceutical intervention
(Exhibits 10, 19). Mr. Capps' severe sleep apnea, with oxygen desaturations to 52%, drives this
Page 31 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 32 of 34
uncontrollable hypertension but cannot be treated following destruction of his CPAP device and
institutional barriers preventing replacement (Exhibits 1, 2, 26).
Institutional Care Has Failed. FPC Florence cannot provide the specialized, coordinated
care Mr. Capps requires. Recent federal court decisions at this facility—United States v. Bovis
(March 2025), United States v. Paradis (January 2025)—document systematic medical
inadequacy requiring judicial intervention. Contemporary evidence from other inmates confirms
ongoing institutional failures, including medical record falsification and diagnostic errors during
the same timeframe as Mr. Capps' crisis. The documented fabrication of Mr. Capps' medical
records transforms negligence into deliberate indifference requiring constitutional remedy (Exhibit
4, ¶¶17-20).
The Relief Requested is Measured. Mr. Capps seeks conversion to supervised release
with VA medical coordination—not escape from accountability. He is already eligible for
community custody as of April 26, 2025, meaning this relief would not materially reduce his
punishment but would ensure he receives constitutionally adequate care during his remaining
sentence. The Veterans Affairs system previously managed his conditions successfully through
integrated specialty care, as documented by controlled symptoms pre-incarceration (Exhibit 9).
Judicial Intervention is Required. Administrative remedies have proven inadequate
when institutional staff fabricate medical records and create operational barriers preventing
effective treatment. The progression from Stage 2 hypertension in March to sustained hypertensive
crisis exceeding 200 mmHg systolic in June demonstrates that each day of continued institutional
"care" poses escalating risk to Mr. Capps' life.
The law provides this Court discretion under § 3582(c)(1)(A) precisely to prevent lawful
sentences from becoming unlawful punishment when extraordinary circumstances develop. Mr.
Page 32 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 33 of 34
Capps has served his time honorably, completed rehabilitation programming, and demonstrated
respect for this Court's authority. He asks only to complete his sentence under conditions that will
not kill him.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Mr. Capps respectfully requests that this Court convert his remaining term
of imprisonment to supervised release with the following conditions:
1. Medical Coordination: Defendant shall coordinate all medical care through the
Department of Veterans Affairs healthcare system for his service-connected sleep apnea,
hypertension, and PTSD;
2. Medical Compliance: Defendant shall comply with all prescribed treatments, attend
scheduled appointments, and provide medical records to U.S. Probation upon request;
3. Standard Conditions: All standard supervised release conditions pursuant to this Court's
judgment; and
4. Additional Conditions: Such other reasonable conditions as this Court deems appropriate.
I Michael R. Capps, declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the
following statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief:
Respectfully submitted July 11, 2025.
_________________________________
Michael R. Capps
Register Number: 66142-509
FPC Florence
PO Box 6000
Florence, CO 81226
Page 33 of 34
Case 6:21-cr-10073-EFM Document 285 Filed 07/11/25 Page 34 of 34
EXHIBIT LIST
Exhibit 1: Sleep Study Documentation (May 2021)
Exhibit 2: Inmate Request to Staff Forms (Multiple Dates)
Exhibit 4: Declaration of Michael R. Capps
Exhibit 5: VA Rating Decision Documentation
Exhibit 6: Mental Health Treatment Requests
Exhibit 7: Service Animal Certification
Exhibit 8: Treatment Progress Documentation
Exhibit 9: Pre-Incarceration Psychiatric Evaluation (September 2024)
Exhibit 10: Medication Prescription Records
Exhibit 11: United States v. Bovis Court Order
Exhibit 12: Declaration of Christopher West
Exhibit 13: Declaration of Thomas Goss
Exhibit 14: Declaration of Gary Franks
Exhibit 15: Declaration of William Wolgamott
Exhibit 16: CPAP Device Manufacturer Documentation
Exhibit 17: VA Appointment Confirmation
Exhibit 19: FPC Florence Medical Records
Exhibit 20: Declaration of Chance Zabriskie
Exhibit 22: BP-9 Administrative Remedy Documentation
Exhibit 24: Blood Pressure Monitoring Log (Updated through June 11, 2025)
Exhibit 25: Eagle OPS Veteran Support Documentation
Exhibit 26: Photograph of FPC Florence Medical Sick Call Schedule
Exhibit 27: BOP Response to Senator James Lankford's Inquiry (April 18, 2025)
Exhibit 28: Research Summary on Budget-Driven Prison Medical Care Crisis (Vera
Institute of Justice, January 2025; Pew Charitable Trusts, October 2017; Equal Justice
Initiative, May 2024)
Exhibit 29: Current Medical Treatment Documentation and Hypertensive Crisis Report
(June 11, 2025)
Exhibit 30: Medical Research: Testosterone Withdrawal and Hypertensive Treatment
Exhibit 31: David Payne Administrative Remedy
Exhibit 32: David Payne Declaration
Exhibit 33: Warden’s Denial (April 7, 2025)
Page 34 of 34