COVID-19 Summary: This case seeks immediate relief for 1,600-plus detainees at the D.C. jail and its adjacent custodial treatment facility due to the risk of COVID-19. The plaintiffs seek the immediate release of individuals sentenced for misdemeanors, who number nearly 100, immediate appointment of an expert to recommend further releases, and the implementation of 18 precautionary measures in the D.C. Jail. On June 18, the district court granted the preliminary injunction in part but refused to order releases.
In the final week of March 2020, the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (“DOC”) announced five COVID-19 cases from different units in its facilities. On March 30, 2020, individuals detained in D.C. jails filed this class action lawsuit on behalf of all such individuals in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Represented by the ACLU-DC and the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, the plaintiffs challenged the DOC's response to the COVID-19 outbreak in the D.C. jail and sought immediate relief for all 1,600-plus individuals housed there. The plaintiffs filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 2241, and 2201, alleging that these conditions violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment," and the plaintiffs' rights under the Fifth Amendment's due process clause. Among other allegations, the plaintiffs claimed that the DOC failed to provide soap or hand sanitizers for residents to clean hands, denied COVID-19 tests to residents with symptoms, and withheld adequate cleaning supplies.
The plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order, injunctive relief, and/or writs of habeas corpus. In particular, the plaintiffs requested that the Court order the DOC to exercise its authority under the D.C. Council’s COVID-19 Response Emergency Amendment Act of 2020 to release individuals sentenced for misdemeanors, who number nearly 100. They asked the Court to immediately appoint an expert, require the defendants to immediately implement 18 new procedures that would bring the DOC in compliance with expert guidance, and appoint an independent monitor to ensure such compliance. At the same time as the filing of the complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.
On April 1, 2020, the court issued a minute order requiring the defendants to provide a list of the names of the approximately 94 persons who had been sentenced to misdemeanors and who defendants were considering for release; the number of people who had been tested for COVID-19 and a break-down of the identities of those individuals (such as inmates, visitors, etc.) and the results of those tests; the date on which defendants began testing people coming into the jails; the number and a breakdown of the results of COVID-19 tests which had been done on those who were incarcerated prior to the date on which Defendants began testing all incoming inmates; all relevant written procedures and practices concerning COVID-19; and the process that was or would be put in place to allow legal counsel to communicate with their clients electronically or by other means.
On April 19, 2020, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits and suffer irreparable harm, but did not grant the totality of the relief requested. Specifically, the court did not order the release of any persons currently detained in DOC facilities. Instead, it ordered the defendants to ensure that the triage process associated with sick call requests on the non-quarantine units was expedited and reflected appropriate sensitivity to the wide variety of symptoms associated with COVID-19. The court also ordered the defendants to implement additional procedures and safeguards to follow medical recommendations, including social distancing practices, personal protective equipment distribution, and staff training.
During a teleconference on April 22, 2020, Plaintiffs indicated that they requested release of individuals under only the federal habeas statute, not under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On April 15, 2020, the defendants moved to join the United States as a necessary party to the litigation. The United States also requested joinder, arguing that it had an interest in this case due to the potential for the release of persons who were under the authority of the United States Attorney General’s office.
The court granted in part the plaintiff's motion for TRO on April 19, requiring the defendant to take sanitation and social distancing measures. On May 1, 2020, the court granted the defendants' motion for joinder but with a limited interest in issues involving the release of persons under the plaintiffs' claims for writs of habeas corpus.
On May 15, the plaintiffs submitted an amended motion for preliminary injunction, as the number of positive COVID-19 cases increased from 5 to 180 since the initial motion. The plaintiffs claimed that although nearly a month has passed since the court's TRO, conditions remained substantially unchanged.
The Fraternal Order of Police for the District of Columbia Department of Corrections
Labor Committee submitted an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs on June 8.
On June 18, the district court granted the preliminary injunction in part, ordering the defendants to provide a detailed plan for the review and possible reductions of the DOC population by July 1. They further ordered the defendants to implement a medical care system that ensured care within 24 hours, social distancing, proper sanitation, non-punitive isolation, access to confidential legal calls, and increased testing for COVID-19. The court refused to appoint an expert or release detainees.
On July 16, the defendants filed a motion to alter and vacate the preliminary injunction, claiming that injunctive relief was no longer warranted as there had been no positive cases at the facilities since June 15, and conditions had been improved by the DOJ, curtailing the risks of COVID-19. The same day, the defendants appealed the preliminary injunction to the D.C. Circuit Court. The appeal is held in abeyance pending the district court's decision.
The plaintiffs opposed the defendant's motion to alter and vacate the preliminary injunction on August 14, arguing that there are additional positive cases and that expert opinion concluds that it is “gravely misguided and dangerous for the D.C. Jail to claim to have ‘halted’ or ‘stopped’ the spread of COVID-19.”
This case is ongoing.
Elena Malik - 05/13/2020
Averyn Lee - 09/22/2020
compress summary
