United States v. Hodge

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: February 11, 2026
• Docket: Criminal No. 2025-0204
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, No. 25-cr-204-DLF v. JEVAUN HODGE,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Mr. JeVaun Hodge suffers from a symptomatic inguinal hernia. He has known about his

hernia since before his April 9, 2025, arrest and incarceration at the D.C. Jail. Since April 9, 2025,

Mr. Hodge has repeatedly complained to the Court of inadequate medical care. See Motion for

Release (Mot. for Release), ECF No. 25; First Supplemental Motion for Release, ECF No. 33;

Second Supplemental Motion for Release, ECF No. 56. On February 5, 2026, Mr. Hodge filed a

Third Supplemental Motion for Release related to the same issue. See Third Supplemental Motion

for Release (Third Supp. Mot.), ECF No. 61.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court ORDERS Mr. Hodge be released forthwith for a

two-week medical furlough, as further detailed below.

I. BACKGROUND

Upon arrival at the jail, Mr. Hodge notified the facility of his hernia. Mr. Hodge

immediately requested to be evaluated by a medical professional at the jail. See Show Cause

Hearing (Feb. 6, 2026) (Mr. Hodge Testimony). See id. Despite these requests, Mr. Hodge has yet

to be seen by a medical professional at the jail. See id. During this time, the hernia Mr. Hodge

suffers from has grown from the size of a raisin to a grapefruit and now causes great pain.

1 On October 29, 2025—and only after court intervention—the jail transported Mr. Hodge

to MedStar Trauma Clinic at Washington Hospital Center. See id. Doctors at MedStar determined

that Mr. Hodge required surgery to treat his hernia. See Mot. for Release at 2. The court again had

to intervene to prompt the scheduling of the surgery. Initially, MedStar scheduled it for January

23, 2026. See Third Supp. Mot. at 1. However, the surgery did not occur then. 1

MedStar rescheduled Mr. Hodge’s surgery to February 5, 2026. See Exhibit to Third Supp.

Mot. for Release 1, ECF No. 61. MedStar informed the D.C. Jail that Mr. Hodge had to arrive at

the hospital at 6:00 a.m. for preoperative preparation. See id. at 2. However, the D.C. Jail failed to

timely transport Mr. Hodge; he arrived at the hospital at 7:40 a.m. See id. (Email chain between

Mr. Townsend, Judge Friedrich’s chambers, and Mr. Hodge’s attorneys). MedStar had to

reschedule Mr. Hodge’s surgery due to his late arrival. See Third Supp. Mot. for Release at 2.

Given this failure, Mr. Hodge filed a Third Supplemental Motion for Release on February

5, 2026. See id. Mr. Hodge asked for temporary release to ensure that he timely arrives for surgery

and so that he has a safe place to recover thereafter. See id.

On February 6, 2026, the Court held its first of three hearings on this motion. At the hearing,

D.C. Jail staff apologized for their mistake in timely transporting Mr. Hodge. They notified the

Court and Mr. Hodge that his new surgery date was February 12, 2026, at 6:00 am.

On February 9, 2026, the Court heard from Mr. Hodge’s treating surgeon, Dr. Jackson.

Dr. Jackson stated the surgery itself should last an hour followed by two hours of postoperative

recovery. Dr. Jackson testified that there are two primary concerns after surgery: hernia recurrence

1 During the emergency hearing on February 6, 2026, jail staff represented to the Court that MedStar rescheduled the surgery. This was the first time anyone communicated that information to Mr. Hodge. This has been a repeated theme: Mr. Hodge has been the last to know what is happening with his treatment.

2 and infection. See id. Dr. Jackson explained that hernia repair typically requires 6 to 8 weeks of

recovery time. See id. The healing process during this time is exponential, not linear. See id. The

most critical time is the first two weeks after the procedure. See id. To mitigate the risk of infection

during this critical period, Dr. Jackson recommends that patients avoid unclean spaces, minimize

contact with other people, especially those who are sick, and regularly clean the wound site. See

id. To mitigate the risk of recurrence, Dr. Jackson recommends that patients avoid most physical

activities. See id. Dr. Jackson also noted that patients typically require regular access to pain

medication, including opioids, during the initial days of recovery post-surgery. See id.

On February 10, 2026, the Court ordered Mr. Hodge’s released as described below.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Section 3142(i) of the Bail Reform Act provides that a “judicial officer may . . . permit the

temporary release of the person, in the custody of a United States marshal or another appropriate

person, to the extent that the judicial officer determines such release to be necessary for [a]

compelling reason.” 18 U.S.C. 3142(i). A defendant moving under § 3142(i) bears the burden of

showing that he is entitled to relief. United States v. Riggins, 456 F. Supp. 3d 138, 149 (D.D.C.

2020). “[A]n assessment about whether to grant a defendant temporary release under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3142(i) also includes a consideration of the Bail Reform Act as a whole.” United States v. Gilbert,

511 F. Supp. 3d 669, 674 (E.D. Pa. 2021).

“[C]ourts have increasingly found that a defendant’s unique vulnerability to [illness], when

combined with other appropriate considerations, such as the original grounds for the defendant’s

pretrial detention, . . . can justify a defendant’s temporary release.” United States v. Thomas, 456

F. Supp. 3d 69, 78 (D.D.C. 2020) (internal quotations removed). “[T]he medical need” does not

have to be “grave . . . to constitute a ‘compelling reason.’” United States v. Kindell, No. 323-cr-

3 039, 2024 WL 841098, at *3 (D. Nev. Feb. 27, 2024). Ultimately, there is no “one-size-fits-all,

blanket approach” to resolving this issue. United States v. Nikparvar-Fard, 18-cv-101, 2020 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 87370, at *10 (E.D. Pa Apr. 20, 2020).

III. DISCUSSION

A. There is a Compelling Reason for Release

The Court’s resolution of the pending motion primarily turns on the answer to two

questions: (1) whether the jail can ensure Mr. Hodge receives adequate care and (2) whether the

conditions at the jail allow for safe recovery.

Mr. Hodge has testified about his experience at the D.C. Jail. See Show Cause Hearing

(Feb. 6, 2026); Status Hearing (Feb. 9, 2026) (Mr. Hodge’s testimony). Among other things, he

described finding live rodents in his cell and the inability to shower due to plumbing problems and

repeated lockdowns. See id. These incidents are not unique to Mr. Hodge. A recent audit of the

D.C. Jail by the Office of the District of Columbia Auditor and Council for Court Excellence

“offers the most comprehensive review to date of facility operations, documenting a crisis marked

by rising deaths, structural decay, staff shortages, and inadequate medical and behavioral health

care.” Report by the Office of the District of Columbia Auditor and Council for Court Excellence

(Report on D.C. Jail) (May 28, 2025) (report available at https://perma.cc/4SPB-XD9U). “Issues

mentioned more frequently in [] inspection reports [of the D.C. Jail] were mold, rodents, insects,

and feces.” Id. From this, the Court concludes that Mr. Hodge cannot safely recover in the

unsanitary conditions at the D.C. Jail during the two-week critical healing period.

Beyond the dangerous conditions at the D.C. Jail, Mr. Hodge has experienced repeated

failures in his care. Among other things, the jail has: ignored Mr. Hodge’s numerous requests over

ten months to be seen by medical staff at the jail; failed to scheduled imaging tests and surgery,

4 until the court intervened; and failed to transport Mr. Hodge to his surgery on time. These repeated

failures are a standalone compelling reason for temporary release. See United States v. Parton, No.

21-cr-107, 2023 WL 2951540, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 7, 2023) (denying temporary release because

jail had provided defendant with medical care and assistance with colostomy bag), report and

recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 2957803 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 14, 2023). What is especially

problematic is that Mr. Hodge repeatedly “raise[d these] problems with his medical care” to the

D.C. Jail staff to no avail. Id. In sum, Mr. Hodge has “explain[ed] why his detention would prevent

him from obtaining adequate treatment [and safe postoperative recovery] for his hernia condition.

United States v. Rebollo-Andino, 312 F. App’x 346, 348 (1st Cir. 2009) (denying without prejudice

request for temporary release where defendant failed to explain problems with care inside the jail).

In response, the D.C. Jail has submitted a declaration that it has the capability to monitor

and care for Mr. Hodge. But the Court is “not obliged to accept [an] affidavit without question[;]”

rather the Court must exercise its discretion to determine truthfulness and reliability. Humane Soc'y

of United States v. United States Dep't of Agric., 549 F. Supp. 3d 76, 88 (D.D.C. 2021) (quoting

Miller v. Casey, 730 F.2d 773, 776 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). This means weighing the plausibility of the

declaration against the evidence of record. See id. It is implausible that the same jail that has failed

repeatedly to care for Mr. Hodge can now miraculously manage the much more complicated task

of postoperative recovery.

The recent audit of the D.C. Jail confirms these to be systemic problems. The audit revealed

that the D.C. Jail “does not provide all the services people in the jail might need, particularly when

it involves specialists or surgery.” Report at D.C. Jail at 90 (emphasis added). The report cites to

a class action lawsuit “that is related to the [D.C. Jail’s] alleged failure to provide constitutionally

required health care, including systemic failures to schedule specialist appointments for residents;

5 regular cancelation of these appointments by [the D.C. Jail]; failure to transport residents to these

appointments and failure to give residents their prescribed medications.” Id. Other lawsuits allege

denial of surgeries and the withholding of medications. See id. These complaints come not only

from the residents of the D.C. Jail. “[T]wo medical providers at MedStar Washington Hospital

Center’s Surgery Center confirmed that jail resident appointments were often missed. They stated

that, either due to missed appointments or failure to schedule appointments for residents, people

from the jail often came in weeks or months after it was medically necessary.” Id. at 91. Based on

these facts, the Court finds the D.C. Jail’s promises to be empty.

Accordingly, the Court finds Mr. Hodge has demonstrated a compelling reason for a

medical furlough. See Gilbert, 511 F. Supp. 3d at 676.

B. The Four Factors Weigh in Favor of Release

“Pretrial detention is the exception, not the norm, under the Bail Reform Act.” United

States v. Klein, 533 F. Supp. 3d 1, 5 (D.D.C. 2021) (citing United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739,

755 (1987)). “[T]o the extent that conditions, or a combination of conditions, can be fashioned to

reasonably provide such assurances, the individual must be released.” United States v. Gilbert, 511

F. Supp. 3d 669, 674 (E.D. Pa. 2021) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3142). In assessing whether any such

conditions can be fashioned, courts consider the four factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g):

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the

defendant; (3) the defendant’s history and characteristics; and (4) the nature and seriousness of the

danger to any person or to the community that would be posed by the defendant’s release. See

United States v. Xulam, 84 F.3d 441, 442 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

Given the limited duration of release, the Court is confident that it can fashion conditions

that will reasonably assure Mr. Hodge’s future presence in court and the safety of the community.

6 As to the first, third, and fourth factors: Mr. Hodge was not indicted for a violent offense.

Mr. Hodge was indicted of mere possession of a firearm, not firing or brandishing it. Mr. Hodge’s

criminal history involves nonviolent acts. Moreover, Mr. Hodge will have limited mobility during

his two-week recovery. In this compromised state, it is difficult to imagine—as is required by

United States v. Munchel, 991 F.3d 1273, 1279 (D.C. Cir. 2021)—a scenario in which Mr. Hodge

could escape from his house, purchase a firearm, and then present a danger to the public with it.

Indeed, given his vulnerability for infection from being around other people, Mr. Hodge would be

putting his own safety at risk just by being around other people at all. See Gilbert, 511 F. Supp. 3d

at 676 (“the Court is assured that Defendant would remain in the household given the risk of

contracting COVID-19 if he exposed himself to the public”). Thus, “the reality is that the risk of

commission of future crime is diminished.” Gilbert, 511 F. Supp. 3d at 676. Moreover, “if

Defendant were released to home confinement at [his fiancé’s] house—a single family home in

[Virginia]—he could protect himself from the [infection] by . . . practicing social distancing from

family members [and limiting his contact with other visitors].” Id. at 678. “And since he will be

living with his [fiancé and step-daughter], both of whom have expressed their willingness to

monitor Defendant's compliance with the bail conditions, Defendant will have the benefit of a

stable environment.” Id. at 677.

As to the second factor, “[n]eedless to say, the Government believes it has a strong case

and the weight of the evidence is a factor that could influence continued detention. But the Court

cannot overlook the fact that Defendant is presumed innocent.” Gilbert, 511 F. Supp. 3d at 677–

78. In addition, the weight of the evidence factor “is the least important.” United States v. Padilla,

538 F. Supp. 3d 32, 43 (D.D.C. 2021) (quoting United States v. Gebro, 948 F.2d 1118, 1121–22

(9th Cir. 1991)). In sum, the Bail Reform Act factors support temporary release and the stringent

7 conditions of release detailed below both ensure Mr. Hodge’s best chance for recovery while

reasonably assuring the Court that he will not pose a danger to the community.

C. Release Conditions

As detailed in the separately docketed Conditions of Release:

- Mr. Hodge is subject to home incarceration;

- Mr. Hodge may only leave his residence for his surgery, follow up appointment in two

weeks with his treating physician, and medical appointments approved by his Pre-trial

Services Agency (“PSA”) officer;

- Mr. Hodge and/or his third-party custodian will contact his PSA officer daily to confirm

compliance with conditions of release; and

- Mr. Hodge is to self-surrender to the D.C. Jail within 24 hours of his two-week follow

up appointment post surgery.

The Court will hold a remote status hearing on February 25, 2026, to ensure that Mr. Hodge

has scheduled the two-week follow-up appointment.

IV. CONCLUSION In 1840, Barthélemy Maurice said “Do you want to appreciate the degree of morality a

people has reached, to measure, so to speak, its civilization? See how it treats its prisoners.” From

this test, we have failed. It is disturbing that in 2026 incarcerated people are still not given the

basic dignities they deserve.

Date: February 11, 2026 ___________________________________ ZIA M. FARUQUI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE