COVID-19 Summary: This is a class-action complaint brought on April 9, 2020, by nine detainees at the Dallas County Jail, who have either been infected with COVID-19 or are at risk due to underlying conditions, seeking release from detention due to the risks to their health in light of the virus. The court rejected the request for TRO on April 26.
__________________________________________________________________
On April 9, 2020, nine individuals detained in Dallas County Jail petitioned for the release of all medically-vulnerable detainees and other detainees who are not medically-vulnerable to reduce the population of the jail so that a six-foot social distance can be maintained. Represented by the ACLU, Civil Rights Corps, and Next Generation Action Network, and private counsel, the plaintiffs brought this lawsuit as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. under § 2241, and as an injunctive action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, they alleged that their detention violates their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by subjecting them to a serious risk of contracting COVID-19. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the detention conditions posed an unreasonable risk against the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendment rights. They also sought a TRO (temporary restraining order), injunctive relief, and a writ of habeas corpus ordering the identification and release of all class members identified as medically vulnerable and further as necessary to ensure reasonable safety. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and assigned to Judge Ada Brown.
Plaintiff Oscar Sanchez, who is being held pretrial on multiple charges, has a history of severe chronic asthma and has begun to show symptoms that are consistent with COVID-19. The petition includes eight additional named plaintiffs who have either tested positive for COVID-19 or are at risk due to medical conditions. The plaintiffs pointed to the jump in a week from five reported COVID-19 infections of detainees and jail employees to almost 30 as of April 7, 2020, a lack of COVID-19 testing and failure to institute social distancing practices, failure to provide the necessary education and protective equipment for safety and hygiene, and failure to segregate detainees with symptoms and illness from other detainees and guards.
On April 12, the plaintiffs moved to certify the matter as a class action and proposed two classes. The “Pre-Adjudication Class” consisted of current and future detainees in pretrial custody at the Dallas County Jail and further divided with the “Medically-Vulnerable Pre-Adjudication Subclass.” “Medically-Vulnerable” is defined as those over the age of 50 and/or with experiences of medical conditions. The “Post-Adjudication Class” consisted of current and future detainees in post-adjudication custody at the Dallas County Jail, with a subclass of “Medically-Vulnerable Post-Adjudication Subclass.”
The State of Texas, Governor Greg Abbott (who issued an executive order on March 29 prohibiting local officials from releasing dangerous felons from jails), and Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a motion to intervene in the case the next day due to concerns of releasing criminals, including Billy Chemirmir, who they labeled as "possibly one of the state’s most prolific serial killers.”
In its motion to dismiss on April 15, the defendants argue that the federal court cannot grant the plaintiff’s motion because the inmates have not exhausted other avenues available to them, which they claimed was required under both the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and the rules governing habeas.
The plaintiffs amended their petition with three additional detainees as plaintiffs on April 17. On April 20, the court granted the state's motion to intervene, and denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs’ motion for TRO, preliminary injunction and writ of habeas corpus was denied on April 27. The Court concluded that it lacks jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ habeas action. They also noted that the plaintiffs have not exhausted administrative, state court, and PLRA remedies. The court further pointed to concerns of federalism and separation of powers.
A telephone conference was held on June 19. The case is ongoing.
Averyn Lee - 07/13/2020
compress summary
