The BOP may send Clare Bronfman back to “Start.”
On July 5, 2022, Clare Bronfman filed a petition seeking the federal court to order the BOP to drop the sex offender label from her Public Safety Factor [PSF] on her file.
The label, her attorneys alleged, prevented her from placement in a prison camp.
On November 9, 2022, the BOP agreed to settle the lawsuit with a stipulation of dismissal.
The BOP and Bronfman agreed: “that, as of November 9, 2022, petitioner’s Bureau of Prisons classification does not include a “sex offender” public safety factor.”
The Court approved the dismissal on November 21, 2022.
Clare’s attorneys, Ronald Sullivan of DC, Duncan Levin of Brooklyn, and Michael L. Chambers Jr, of C.T., brokered the settlement with BOP.
Within days after the lawsuit was dismissed, and the BOP dropped the “sex offender” label, FCI Danbury scrubbed Bronfman’s contacts, denying her phone calls and visits from more than two dozen friends, relatives and an attorney.
The BOP canceled her weekly legal call, and when lawyers came to FCI Danbury, where Bronfman is housed in a low security prison, officials did not provide a heated room for their meeting.
Her lawyers allege the prison is retaliating adding that officials gave Bronfman conflicting information about her status. Though the sex offender label was gone, the BOP did not transfer Bronfman to a prison camp.
On January 20, Bronfman’s lawyers filed a motion to reopen her lawsuit, writing:
“Though BOP did remove the sex offender label from her file, Ms. Bronfman continues to be treated as though she has been convicted of a sex offender.”
Clare Bronfman, 43, was sentenced to 81 months in federal prison, with a release date of August 18, 2025 – two years and six months from today.
Bronfman remains at low-security FCI Danbury, and has not been moved to the minimum security camp as her attorneys expected.
Her attorneys asked the court:
for an issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing [BOP] to remove any references to sex offenses from [Bronfman’s] record;
to cease any requirement that she participate in the Female Integrated Treatment (FIT) program;
to restore Petitioner’s telephone and email privileges;
to provide Petitioner and her attorneys with a space suitable for legal visits to allow Petitioner to both meet with and speak with her attorneys on the telephone;
to grant her time credit for early release… pursuant to the CARES/First Step Act.
BOP Fights Back
The BOP, objecting to Bronfman’s motion to reopen, argues that Bronfman blew it. The stipulation of dismissal ended the case.
The BOP dropped the sex offender label on Bronfman’s file. Nobody promised anything else, such as the BOP had to transfer to a prison camp or not cut off contact with her friends.
The BOP lawyers wrote, “As a procedural matter, the Court administratively dismissed the above-captioned matter
after Petitioner stipulated that the condition of confinement she challenged … BOP’s application of a ‘sex offender’ Public Safety Factor (PSF)… was resolved because BOP had removed the PSF.’
Ronald Sullivan represents Clare Bronfman. Did he fail to button down the Stipulation of Dismissal, or did the BOP play foul with his client?
The BOP also argued that Bronfman cannot even start a new lawsuit immediately.
The BOP argues that before she can sue on a “new litany of complaints regarding the conditions of her confinement,” she must “exhaust” her administrative remedies.
The BOP cited the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) which states that “[n]o action shall be brought… until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.”
The BOP argued Bronfman “failed to exhaust these new grievances through the BOP’s administrative remedy process.”
Clare Bronfman and Keith Raniere.
This may send Bronfman back to a more than year-long process. She went through the four step administrative process when she began her lawsuit in 2021.
The BOP’s four-step Administrative Remedy Program involves
(1) an attempt at informal resolution;
(2) a written remedy request to the warden;
(3) an appeal to the regional director; and
(4) an appeal to the BOP general counsel’s office.
The judge will have to decide whether the BOP met its obligation by the letter of the law by dropping the sex offender designation, or violated the spirit of the law by dropping the words ‘sex offender’ then retaliating and treating her as if nothing changed at all.
