United States of America v. Timothy Ryan

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 26, 2024*
Decided March 1, 2024
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
No. 23-2443
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY RYAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, South Bend Division.
No. 3:15-CR-62-RLM
Robert L. Miller, Jr.,
Judge.
O R D E R
Timothy Ryan, a federal prisoner serving a 157-month sentence for offenses
involving child pornography, appeals the denial of his most recent motion for
compassionate release. Because the district judge did not abuse his discretion by
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. FED. R. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 4 --

No. 23-2443 Page 2
concluding that Ryan’s health conditions did not constitute an extraordinary and
compelling reason for an early release, we affirm.
Ryan first moved for compassionate release in January 2021, citing the dangers
posed by COVID-19 and his prison’s allegedly ineffective protocol for mitigating the
risks. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. We affirmed the denial of his
motion because Ryan did not furnish evidence that he faced particularized risks from
COVID or that the prison took inadequate precautions. See United States v. Ryan,
No. 21-1275, 2021 WL 6102169 (7th Cir. Dec. 23, 2021).
In February 2023 Ryan again sought compassionate release, this time submitting
a lengthy brief and multiple exhibits, including medical records. He argued that
insufficient medical treatment for his various conditions—including complications from
a previous COVID infection, a seizure disorder, sleep apnea, hypertension,
hypersomnia, asthma, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—placed him at grave
risk in the prison setting. He further contended that his maladies increased his
vulnerability to serious illness from COVID and that he has never refused the vaccine
but has been sick each time it was offered. And he asserted that his medical records
frequently downplayed the severity of his conditions and that some were fabrications.
After receiving the government’s response in opposition, the judge denied
Ryan’s motion for compassionate release. First, the judge ruled that Ryan’s health
conditions, together or separately, did not justify early release because they were being
managed, or as in the case of seizures and sleep apnea, they would be addressed when
normal testing and treatment resumed after the pandemic waned. Other conditions, the
judge continued, simply were not severe. The judge also determined that Ryan had
declined the COVID vaccine on multiple occasions without good reason and therefore
could not justify early release based on the potential risks of another bout with the virus
(he has been infected multiple times). Next, the judge explained that Ryan’s grievances
about facility-wide conditions related to COVID mitigation did not present an
individualized reason to grant a motion for compassionate release, and further, that
such a motion was an inappropriate vehicle for challenging conditions of confinement
or the adequacy of medical treatment at his prison.
Ryan filed a motion to reconsider that was timely under the prison mailbox rule.
See FED. R. A PP. P. 4(c). He primarily disputed the judge’s summary of the evidence. The
judge denied the motion, explaining that some of Ryan’s assertions were not credible
given the evidence in the record and that Ryan’s motion mostly restated his arguments

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 23-2443 Page 3
without identifying a legal or factual error in the prior decision. The judge then granted
Ryan’s request to treat the reconsideration motion, if unsuccessful, as a notice of appeal.
On appeal Ryan contends that because of inaccuracies in his medical records, the
judge did not perceive that his ailments were severe enough to be an extraordinary and
compelling reason for compassionate release. We review both the denial of a
compassionate-release motion and the denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Sarno, 37 F.4th 1249, 1253 (7th Cir. 2022).
Ryan’s primary argument amounts to a request that we reweigh the medical
evidence to reach a conclusion different from the district court’s, which is not our role.
First, the judge considered, but rejected, Ryan’s assertion that his records were falsified,
and Ryan provides no reason to question that finding. His disagreement with medical
providers’ characterizations does not establish that the records were fabricated.
Second, the judge appropriately viewed the entirety of Ryan’s treatment history
in determining that Ryan’s conditions were mild, were being managed, or were
nonemergency conditions for which testing or treatment was delayed by pandemic-
related closures. In doing so the judge viewed Ryan’s conditions separately and
collectively and concluded that they were not severe enough to be extraordinary and
compelling. We do not second-guess the judge’s holistic assessment of Ryan’s situation.
See United States v. Vaughn, 62 F.4th 1071, 1073 (7th Cir. 2023).
The judge also properly considered Ryan’s unvaccinated status. Prisoners
seeking compassionate release based on the dangers presented by COVID must show
that they cannot receive or medically benefit from vaccines or that, even vaccinated,
they would be safer outside prison. See id. at 1072; United States v. Broadfield, 5 F.4th 801,
802–03 (7th Cir. 2021). Ryan has not attempted to make this showing. Instead, he
submits evidence that he answered “yes” to the question “Are you sick today?” when
the vaccine was offered, and he states that the vaccine was therefore “contraindicated.”
At most, this would be true in those specific instances, but Ryan does not address the
general questions whether he could benefit medically from the vaccine or would be
safer outside the prison setting. Moreover, the judge properly determined that Ryan
was just speculating. He did not point to evidence that he ever declined the vaccine on
the advice of a medical professional; he instead drew inferences from a pamphlet for a
medication he was taking and the pre-vaccine screening form.
To the extent that Ryan reprises on appeal his general challenges to the
conditions of his confinement, including the quality of healthcare available, he does not

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 23-2443 Page 4
demonstrate error in the judge’s conclusion that there are other avenues for these
arguments. See United States v. Bridgewater, 995 F.3d 591, 599 (7th Cir. 2021).
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --