Florida Federal Court Excoriates BOP for Health Care Failures, Grants Prisoner Early Release to Seek Treatment for Possible Breast Cancer
by Matt Clarke
On March 31, 2026, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida reluctantly granted a federal prisoner early release after the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) dropped the ball multiple times in scheduling an urgently needed appointment with a breast surgeon to treat probable breast cancer.
In October 2021, Justina Maria Holland was sentenced to eight years imprisonment on 22 counts of mail and wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and other fraud and theft crimes. She was transferred to home confinement in October 2025 and was scheduled to begin a term of supervised release in March 2027.
Holland had filed several motions for compassionate release, each of which the court denied. On January 16, 2026, she filed “a lengthy and inexpert pro se” motion seeking compassionate release, which was similar to the previously denied motions except for one new ground. That ground alleged that, on December 23, 2025, a physician found lumps in both her breasts and bloody discharge from her nipples. Concluding Holland had a high risk of breast cancer, the physician ordered BRCA tests. Then, on January 8, 2026, she received an urgent referral for an appointment with a breast surgeon. In her motion, she called the referral an “emergency.”
The court considered the government’s response that “there does not appear to be any documented emergency” suspect, especially since the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) published a report a few weeks earlier concluding that the BOP “delayed scheduling urgent medical appointments, leading to the death by treatable cancer of an inmate sentenced by the” court, Frederick Mervin Bardell. The report concluded “that the DOJ’s reliance on the BOP’s representations without further inquiry led to Frederick Bardell’s death.”
Holland filed two supplemental replies, informing the court that the BOP had finally scheduled an appointment for a month after the referral but it turned out to be with a general surgeon, not a breast surgeon, as the referral required. The second supplemental reply included a letter from Holland’s doctor stating that the referral to a breast surgeon was “medically necessary and urgent.”
The court appointed Holland counsel and set a hearing for a few days later, ordering the government to give the court a copy of Holland’s medical records that was certified to be complete and prepare to discuss the medical records in full and anticipated medical needs. However, the records given to the court were obviously incomplete as they did not contain the referral or letter from Holland’s doctor.
The court told the government that it would grant compassionate release if Holland was not seen by a breast surgeon within 30 days. First, the BOP scheduled an appointment with a general surgeon in a distant city; then, when the court ordered that the appointment be in Orlando, where Holland lived, the BOP failed to schedule one before the deadline. The court proceeded to grant compassionate release and gave the BOP an excoriating rebuke.
“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,” the court wrote. “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.”
The court continued, “[DOJ] attorneys must be mindful in dealing with the [BOP] to ensure they comply with their duty to the Court. … The [BOP] will emerge unscathed, while the Government’s lawyer—and most importantly, the inmate—will carry the scars of its misfeasance.” See: United States v. Holland, USDC (M.D. Fla.).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
United States v. Holland
| Year | 2026 |
|---|---|
| Cite | USDC (M.D. Fla.) |
| Level | District Court |