Order Denying Motion for Furlough — No. 0:21-cr-00169 (Dkt. 168, D. Minn.)

Summary

Order Denying Motion for Furlough, Doc. 168 filed November 29, 2023 in United States v. Harold Bennie Kaeding, Case No. 21-CR-169 (ECT/JFD) in the District of Minnesota. Kaeding, a pro se pretrial detainee housed at FMC-Rochester, moved (Dkt. No. 167) for a furlough to see a specialist in Chaska, Minnesota, saying he needed at least four trips for an initial visit, an MRI, a procedure or surgery and follow-up care. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) a detainee may be released temporarily for a compelling reason; the court finds Kaeding offered only his own unsworn statement, no documentation from a physician, and no explanation of why FMC-Rochester could not provide the treatment. John F. Docherty, United States Magistrate Judge, denies the motion without prejudice and notes that any sealed filing must follow D. Minn. LR 49.1(d).

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

         CASE 0:21-cr-00169-ECT-JFD Doc. 168 Filed 11/29/23 Page 1 of 4




                         UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA


 United States of America,
                                                        Case. No. 21-CR-169 (ECT/JFD)
                       Plaintiff,

 v.                                                  ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
                                                            FURLOUGH
 Harold Bennie Kaeding,

                       Defendant.


       This case is before the Court on pro se Defendant Harold Bennie Kaeding’s Motion

for Furlough for Medical Care. (Dkt. No. 167.) The motion is denied because Mr. Kaeding

has not demonstrated a compelling reason to justify his temporary release from pretrial

detention. Specifically, he has not provided any evidence that he needs the treatment, or

that such treatment is unavailable to him at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, MN

(“FMC-Rochester”).

       Mr. Kaeding, a pretrial detainee currently housed at FMC-Rochester, filed a motion

for a furlough to see a specialist in Chaska, MN to treat his spinal stenosis. (Def.’s Mot. 1,

Dkt. No. 167.) He states that he needs at least four trips for medical care: an initial visit to

his specialist, an appointment for an MRI in a specialized machine that can accommodate

someone with morbid obesity, a hospitalization for a “procedure or surgery,” and any

follow up visits that may be necessary. (Id. at 4.) Mr. Kaeding asks permission to be with

his wife and children during his “hospital visits and his recovery times.” (Id.)




                                               1
        CASE 0:21-cr-00169-ECT-JFD Doc. 168 Filed 11/29/23 Page 2 of 4




       The Court may release a pretrial detainee temporarily if it is “necessary for

preparation of the person’s defense or for another compelling reason.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i);

see, e.g., United States v. Parton, No. 3:21-CR-107-KAC-JEM-1, 2023 WL 2957803, at

*1 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 14, 2023) (adopting recommendation denying medical furlough

because defendant failed to show a compelling reason, as well as his flight risk and danger

to the community). In determining whether the defendant has met his burden of showing a

compelling reason for temporary release, courts may consider whether the medical needs

are being adequately addressed in the defendant’s current placement, as well its prior

findings on the question of detention. See United States v. Pritchett, No. CR 19-280, 2020

WL 1640280, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 2, 2020) (“Additionally, there is no indication that, to

the extent Defendant has medical needs, those needs are not being addressed at the ACJ.”);

United States v. Vance, No. 2:05-CR-43, 2007 WL 9747294, at *1 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 23,

2007) (considering prior detention rulings when evaluating a request for medical furlough).

       While the Court is aware that Mr. Kaeding has been diagnosed with spinal stenosis

from a review of records submitted by Mr. Kaeding’s former counsel last year, it does not

find compelling reasons to grant him a furlough. Mr. Kaeding has not provided any

documentation from a physician indicating the need for this surgery, nor has he submitted

anything to the Court beyond his own unsworn statement that the surgery will require four

visits. More importantly, Mr. Kaeding has been placed at FMC-Rochester as a pretrial

detainee precisely because the Court could foresee that Mr. Kaeding might need medical

care. Why FMC-Rochester, a tertiary care facility within the Bureau of Prisons’ medical

hierarchy, cannot provide surgery if it is medically necessary, is also something Mr.

                                            2
         CASE 0:21-cr-00169-ECT-JFD Doc. 168 Filed 11/29/23 Page 3 of 4




Kaeding does not explain. In sum, Mr. Kaeding has neither produced documentary

evidence that his spinal stenosis needs more aggressive treatment nor explained why FMC-

Rochester is incapable of providing such treatment. The Court has reason to be skeptical

of Mr. Kaeding’s unsupported claims; this is not the first time he has represented that he

needs surgery. (See Order 5, Dkt. No. 154 (recalling how Mr. Kaeding claimed he suffered

a heart attack in Colombia and needed surgery but was admitted to the hospital only for

high blood pressure and never had surgery), objections overruled by Dkt. No. 166.)

       Without any competent proof that Mr. Kaeding (a) needs this medical care and (b)

cannot receive it at FMC-Rochester, the Court will not grant Mr. Kaeding a furlough. He

is charged with three counts of wire fraud, three counts of aggravated identity theft, and

one count of money laundering and is alleged to have used the identities of his family

members to perpetrate the frauds. (Id.) As this Court has previously stated, Mr. Kaeding

remains a flight risk and poses “a serious risk of risk of obstruction of justice and financial

danger to the community.” (Order 2.) The Court will not risk the possibility of obstruction

of justice or flight without compelling evidence. Mr. Kaeding has provided no evidence at

all, 1 and therefore the motion is denied.




1
  Mr. Kaeding states in a footnote to his motion that “[t]he name and address of the [d]octor
as well as any specific medical information will be provided to the Court upon request if
is agreed that this information will be treated as **SEALED** information.” (Def.’s Mot.
1 n.1.) Mr. Kaeding is proceeding pro se after discharging his court-appointed counsel.
(See Order Granting Mot. to Withdraw as Counsel 1, Dkt. No. 147.) It is up to Mr. Kaeding
to submit what evidence he thinks is appropriate to support his motion and to comply with
any rules applicable to the sealing of documents in criminal cases. See D. Minn. LR 49.1(d).
                                              3
       CASE 0:21-cr-00169-ECT-JFD Doc. 168 Filed 11/29/23 Page 4 of 4




      Accordingly, based on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Kaeding’s Motion for Furlough for Medical Care is

DENIED without prejudice.


Date: November 29, 2023                      s/ John F. Docherty
                                            JOHN F. DOCHERTY
                                            United States Magistrate Judge




                                       4


File and source

File

168.pdf

Size

162,367 bytes

SHA-256

17b7ea5372676ab770bc19e068c0758dbc87fda2848e5330ded6e56ad830fb79

Our copy

168.pdf

Original

No public link identified.