COVID-19 Summary: This is a representative habeas action filed by prisoners of the Illinois Department of Corrections, seeking various forms of relief for six subclasses of prisoners in light of COVID-19. The plaintiffs alleged that they were particularly vulnerable to the virus, either due to medical conditions or their age. The petitioners were denied habeas relief on April 10.
On April 2, 2020, a group of prisoners filed this lawsuit against the Illinois Department of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Represented by the Uptown People's Law Center, Equip for Equality, the MacArthur Justice Center at Northwestern University, the Illinois Prison Project, and Loevy & Loevy, the petitioners sought writs of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Specifically, they sought different kinds of relief for different subclasses of prisoners as follows:
-subclass 1 (those with underlying medical conditions): immediate medical furlough
-subclass 2 (those who were medically vulnerable because they were over 55 years old and eligible for medical furlough): immediate medical furlough
-subclass 3 (those over 55 with less than one year remaining in their sentence, who were eligible for home detention): immediate transfer to home detention
-subclass 4 (those in custody for Class 2, 3, or 4 offenses who were eligible for home detention): immediate transfer to home detention
-subclass 5 (those in custody for Class 1 or Class X offenses with less than 90 days remaining on their sentence who were eligible for home detention): immediate transfer to home detention
-subclass 6 (those in custody scheduled to be released within 180 days who were eligible to receive sentencing credit): immediate award of 180 days of sentencing credit.
The same plaintiffs filed a similar case for injunctive relief. For more details, see
here in the Clearinghouse.
The parties submitted briefing on April 6 specifically addressing how the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") applied to the relief sought for subclasses 1 and 2. The plaintiffs argued that the PLRA had no application to petitions for writs of habeas corpus. The defendants argued that habeas was not the appropriate vehicle for the plaintiff's claims and that even if it were, relief under habeas was unwarranted.
On April 10, Judge Dow denied the petitioners' habeas petition, finding that the requirement for exhausting relief in state courts prior to filing in federal court had not been met.
On July 8, a pro se intervenor filed a motion for emergency relief and on September 10, Judge John F. Kness directed the parties to submit a concise joint status report. He also ordered the respondents to respond to the intervenor's motion by October 2.
The case remains ongoing.
Caitlin Kierum - 09/21/2020
compress summary
