Deb Golden

@debgoldendc

Lawyer. Not your lawyer. Mother. Not your mother. By day (and frankly nights and weekends), a civil rights lawyer for people who are incarcerated. Other times, just exhausted. Washington DC based.

1.781 Folgt3.964 Follower5.358 Posts

Bluesky

Ist das dein Profil?Übernimm es — dann gehört dir debgoldendc.dirty.social.Profil übernehmen

Deb Golden@debgoldendc· 5d

Mascots are for Supreme Courts!

Amicus, the mascot of the Canadian Supreme Court, who is a giant stuffed owl dressed like Santa Claus.

Deb Golden@debgoldendc· 25d

What it's like to travel with me

A sign explaining why there is a Student Prison, which we are about to tour

Deb Golden@debgoldendc· 29d

The most confusing sign I've seen so far in Bavaria

Deb Golden@debgoldendc· Jul 1

Ok on top of being creepy AF this is stupid. A trans girl on blockers has her T blocked. That's the whole fucking point.

According to the initiative, students would have several options to confirm their sex: a visual genital exam, a lab test to determine their genetic makeup, or an analysis of testosterone levels in the blood. The genital exam, which a medical professional can conduct without touching the child, would likely be the most accessible option for most kids.

Deb Golden@debgoldendc· Jun 28

It not my imagination. The dumbest people alive are coming to visit.

A post on Ask Washington on Nextdoor: Are there any museums around Washington that are worth visiting?
Art, history, science, or something unique. Which ones would you recommend to neighbors?

Deb Golden@debgoldendc· Jun 25

So jealous of the lawyer who had this walk into their office..

https://www.reddit.com/r/legal/s/pNuFecDdc1

Deb Golden@debgoldendc· Jun 25

I have taken myself out to dinner and down the prettiest mocktail

A beautiful purple drink with a pretty lemon and green sprig. It's called Fields of Lavender.

Deb Golden@debgoldendc· Jun 17

If I build clients, I would definitely fire them for this.

Screenshot of the faqs for overbilled ai

Deb Golden@debgoldendc· Jun 17

New source of nonsense l just dropped

Deb Golden@debgoldendc· Jun 17

"For informational purposes only" is how they responded to one of my clients telling them she was raped by a guard. I guess no corrective action was necessary.

Only a quarter of complaints in 2023 were actually denied, meaning prison officials evaluated the content of the requests and refused them based on their merits. A growing portion, 29%, were “closed” that year for other reasons. That often meant officials responded with a vague answer to prisoners’ pleas that is “for informational purposes only,” and not registered as a rejection or denial. According to Giamusso, that designation is used for cases that “do not require any corrective action.”

Deb Golden@debgoldendc· Jun 17

The grievance system is *supposed to* provide an organized way for prison officials to solve problems before they get worse. Not how it works.

Attorneys and people in prison recounted the most frustrating reasons for rejections they’ve seen, like writing with a pencil instead of a pen, or a woman reporting sexual abuse who was rejected for misspelling her abuser’s last name. One advocate recalled a case where a Spanish-speaking prisoner filed a grievance asking for translation services, but was rejected for writing it in Spanish.

Deb Golden@debgoldendc· Jun 17

Significantly worse than California, Georgia, even Texas.

Across 24 years of prison filings, healthcare-related requests like Mollica’s were the third most common reason for someone to lodge a complaint, behind housing problems and staff-related issues. Of all medical grievances decided in 2023, fewer than 1% were granted.The bureau’s approval rate appears to be far below that of many state corrections departments, the news organizations found, though departments track such data in different ways. In California, officials granted roughly 15% of grievances and appeals in 2023, according to an analysis by The Marshall Project and NPR. In Georgia, nearly 13% of cases were “granted, partially granted or resolved,” that year, according to the department. In Texas state prisons, over 4% of complaints and appeals processed that year were “resolved in inmate favor” — a very small portion, but about twice the bureau’s rate.

Deb Golden@debgoldendc· Jun 15

I’m learning German on Duolingo! So far I can order cookies or coffee. Not particularly useful

Deb Golden@debgoldendc· Jun 13

Shout out to these guys because no way I'm getting up on a scaffolding - it looks terrifying!

Building the scaffolding to take down the fuckers name

Deb Golden@debgoldendc· Jun 13

Here I am!

Guy with flag and one with your no jfk sign

Deb Golden@debgoldendc· May 21

A Jew's name being Israel has nothing to do with ties to the modern state of Israel. C'mon New York Mag.

Screenshot of the story notes that Rahm Emanuel's middle name is Israel

Deb Golden@debgoldendc· May 15

Post prison visit provisions acquired!

Me holding Skittles and Reese's in front of a Royal Farms chicken mascot statue

Deb Golden@debgoldendc· Apr 26

Useful perspective and background. With this key point

Deb Golden@debgoldendc· Apr 23

Oh my gd

There are bad movies, and then there are movies that drain all life and joy out of a person’s soul. The new animated Animal Farm falls firmly into the latter category. Directed by Andy Serkis and adapted from the original George Orwell novel, this is a movie aimed at children but is really for no one with any sense or taste. That includes the kids of the world. Six-year-olds are too savvy for this shit.

Deb Golden@debgoldendc· Apr 8

It's going to be disappointing, even with basement expectations, right?

A package of Manischewitz kosher for pesach gluten free noodles.

Deb Golden@debgoldendc· Apr 1

But here's the extra kicker, the judge terminated Ms. Holland's sentence the day after her appointment. Why would he do that? Because the BOP has to pay for it while she's in custody.

2. Ms. Holland’s sentence is REDUCED to time served as of Thursday,
April 9, 2026. The Bureau of Prisons, and any contractor in privity
with it, are ORDERED not to cancel Ms. Holland’s appointment with
the breast surgeon for April 8, 2026, and are further ORDERED to
ensure that she has whatever accommodations she needs to attend
that appointment. As of April 9, 2026, the Bureau of Prisons is further
ORDERED to make whatever accommodations needed to end her
sentence, given her home confinement status. Ms. Holland’s

Deb Golden@debgoldendc· Apr 1

I don't exactly know what it means when a judge says that you, the lawyer, will carry the scars of misfeasance. But I do know that I never want to find out.

emerge unscathed, while the Government’s lawyer—and most importantly, the
inmate—will carry the scars of its misfeasance. See United States v. Bardell, No. 6:11-

Deb Golden@debgoldendc· Apr 1

Again, I know this may not seem like a big deal to people whose brains aren't pickled by the law, but whew!

There can be no presumption of regularity. The

Deb Golden@debgoldendc· Apr 1

But here's the part that would have me crawling into the sea if I were involved on the BOP side. The judge basically call the US prison system Soviet Russia.

Nothing seems to move the nation’s federal prison system operators to
improve their response to the urgent medical needs of the federal prison
population. Court orders go unread or ignored. OIG reports are dismissed,
recommendations unheeded. Sanctions brook no change. Outside medical
referrals are like Solzhenitsyn’s sick bay in the Soviet Gulag: a coveted but nearly
inaccessible refuge for which only prisoners near death qualify for admission.2

2 See generally Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, ONE DAY IN THE LIFE OF IVAN DENISOVICH

Department of Justice attorneys must be mindful in dealing with the
Bureau of Prisons to ensure they comply with their duty of candor to the Court.
A client who repeatedly fails to comply with court orders and OIG
recommendations falls into the “trust but verify” category of governmental
agencies. There can be no presumption of regularity. The Bureau of Prisons will
emerge unscathed, while the Government’s lawyer—and most importantly, the
inmate—will carry the scars of its misfeasance. See United States v. Bardell, No. 6:11-
cr-401 (M.D. Fla. 2011); OIG Report at 47, 50–51.

Deb Golden@debgoldendc· Apr 1

Judge is not mincing words here in his analysis.

The failure to provide inmates with urgent medical care is now a well-
documented problem with the BOP. See OIG Report at 50–51. Three months ago,

with lumps in both breasts and bleeding from the nipples, Ms. Holland received
an urgent referral for a doctor’s appointment to check for cancer. She still has not
seen a doctor. The BOP’s repeated failures—to timely provide Ms. Holland with
an appointment, to get her to the right doctor, even to collect her complete medical
records—self-evidently show that Ms. Holland has an extraordinary and
compelling medical circumstance qualifying her for compassionate release. See

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(C) (specialized medical care not being provided, risking
serious deterioration or death). The BOP is simply unwilling or unable to provide
appropriate medical care.

Deb Golden@debgoldendc· Apr 1

Here's what the US Attorney's Office said after the last massive screw up that killed someone. Does it seem at this point that there was consultation, and supervisory review, coordination to get the relevant records?

Recommendation 7: The Department should develop policies or procedures that provide guidance to AUSAs
about steps they should take and factors they should consider when responding to motions for
compassionate release based on medical circumstances. As part of such policies or procedures, the
Department should consider requiring AUSAs, before responding to a motion for compassionate release, to
seek input from BOP medical professionals or other medical experts and address timeliness and quality of
past medical care by the BOP for the inmate, understaffing at the facility where the inmate is housed, and
the BOP’s ability to meet the inmate’s needs.
Status: Resolved.
EOUSA Response: EOUSA reported the following:
55
EOUSA concurs with this recommendation. EOUSA will distribute guidance to the United States
Attorney community that addresses this recommendation and provides that United States
Attorneys’ offices should:
• Coordinate with BOP to obtain relevant records;
• Consider BOP’s ability to meet the inmate’s medical needs;
• Identify USAO point(s) of contact for consultation on motions involving complex medical questions;
• Consult with the Criminal Division’s Mental Health Litigation Unit on motions involving complex
questions related to the inmate’s cognitive ability or mental health; and
• Require supervisory review and approval before line attorneys respond to motions for
compassionate release based on terminal illnesses or other medical circumstances implicating
complex or novel questions

Deb Golden@debgoldendc· Apr 1

But, understanding that there are gonna be some questions, the AUSA files an explanation. The AUSA says it's the BOP's internal lawyer's fault: he interpreted the court order to mean exactly what it did not say, and what didn't make any sense given the circumstances.

Alongside this status report, the Government’s counsel filed a motion to
supplement Ms. Holland’s medical records to explain the discrepancy identified
at the hearing, stating that when Ms. Holland was transferred to home
confinement, her medical care was taken over by a BOP third-party contractor. (Id.
at 6.) Counsel acknowledged that the missing records were in the possession,
custody, and control of the BOP via this contractor, but asserted that the failure to
provide them was inadvertent because the BOP’s attorney “provided the
defendant’s entire medical file as it understood the Court’s order.” (Id. at 2, 6, 9
(emphasis added).) Counsel now asks the Court for leave to file these finally
complete medical records under seal. (Id. at 10.)

Deb Golden@debgoldendc· Apr 1

What does the BOP do? As my father-in-law would say, sit around with its thumb up its ass. (He has a way with words). At this point, the AUSA has to acknowledge that the BOP has completely screwed the pooch, and that Ms. Holland should be released.

On March 27, the deadline by which Ms. Holland was supposed to have
seen a breast surgeon, Ms. Holland’s counsel filed an update. (Doc. 206.) To the
surprise of no one, the BOP did not do what it was ordered to do. Despite the
Court’s order for haste, the BOP took no action until March 20, more than three
weeks after the hearing. (Id. at 2.) Incredibly, the BOP again scheduled Ms. Holland
with a general surgeon, not a breast surgeon. (Id.) And to add insult to injury, the
appointment was in Gainesville, not Orlando. (Id.) The appointment was set for
March 23, but when Ms. Holland informed them of these issues, the BOP canceled
it. (Id.) So on March 25, two days before the deadline, the BOP finally scheduled
Ms. Holland with a breast surgeon in Orlando. (Id. at 2–3.) But—likely because the

BOP waited until the eleventh hour—the appointment was not available until
April 8, nearly two weeks after the deadline and three full months after the initial
urgent referral. (Id. at 3.) In response to this status update, the Government’s
counsel “acknowledge[d] that the timing of the appointment does not comply”
with the Court’s Order and essentially conceded to release. (Doc. 205, p. 1.)

Deb Golden@debgoldendc· Apr 1

The judge gave the BOP 30 days to get her to a breast surgeon. Now, this is the Middle District of Florida. There are lots of doctors, but they, like all doctors, are busy.

deeming the referral urgent. (Doc. 204, Tr. 4:4–6:7.) Counsel then conceded that
the referral was urgent, contrary to the Government’s written response. (Id. at 6:8–
17.) The Court advised the Government that it intended to grant Ms. Holland
compassionate release if she did not see a breast surgeon in thirty days, by
March 27. (See id. at 9:17–10:5.) The Court emphasized the urgency of the matter
and noted that she needed to be seen by a breast surgeon, not a general surgeon.
(See id. at 7:7–8 (“This is a matter of exigency. It needs to be handled with
alacrity.”), 8:18–9:2.) The Court confirmed this oral ruling with a written Order a
few days later, on March 4. (Doc. 200.)

Deb Golden@debgoldendc· Apr 1

This is not something that you want to see a judge write about what you submitted. Yes, the BOP apparently told the AUSA that the file was complete, but she didn't double check. And for that, she gets called out by the judge.