COVID-19 Summary: On April 13, 2020, medically vulnerable individuals incarcerated at the federal prison FCI Elkton sought release in light of the threat of COVID-19. On April 22, the court granted a preliminary injunction, ordering the prison to identify all such prisoners and evaluate each for transfer by any means (compassionate release, parole or community supervision, transfer furlough, or non-transfer furlough). For anyone ineligible for transfer to a community setting, the Court ordered transfer to another prison facility that would enable social distancing or testing/single cell placement. After numerous appeals to the Sixth Circuit and Supreme Court of the United States, the Sixth Circuit vacated the injunction. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss in July 2020 and between September 2020 and March 2021, the court granted numerous joint motions to stay all proceedings . The defendants continued to file daily status reports through April 2021. In January and May 2021, the plaintiffs filed two notices of stipulated dismissal, which terminated their claims. The case is now closed.
As of April 13, 2020, the state of Ohio reported 6,975 total cases of COVID-19. By that time, at least three individuals incarcerated in the Elkton Federal Prison, located south of Youngstown, Ohio, had died of the disease.
On April 13, 2020, the plaintiffs, a group of incarcerated individuals at Elkton and its adjacent low-security facility, brought this lawsuit against the Warden of Elkton and the Director of the Federal Bureau of prisons, seeking habeas relief in the form of expedited consideration and immediate release of the putative class. The plaintiffs sought class action certification for all current and future individuals in custody at Elkton, including a medically-vulnerable subclass, representing a total of approximately 2,417 individuals. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the prison failed to "provide meaningful protection" against the spread of the disease, citing experts who stated that social distancing within the prison was "impossible" and that the close proximity of showers, phones, and sinks made transmission even more likely. The plaintiffs also alleged a total lack of soap or hand sanitizer dispensers, and stated that Elkton "does nothing to protect high-risk prisoners." The plaintiffs sought expedited release of the Medically-Vulnerable subclass and judicial supervision of a prevention and mitigation plan.
The case was assigned to Judge James S. Gwin, who, on April 14, granted the plaintiffs' motion to expedite. On April 17, the defendants filed an answer. On the same day, the court ordered the defendants to submit a list of individuals who were immunocompromised. The defendants argued that steps taken at Elkton--including screening, quarantine procedures, and staff education--were sufficient, and that the plaintiffs were not suffering constitutional harm as a result of their incarceration during the COVID-19 crisis.
On April 22, the Court granted a preliminary injunction, granting in part and denying in part the plaintiff's request for relief. The Court ordered that, within one day, the defendants must identify all members of the subclass and, within two weeks, evaluate each member’s eligibility for transfer out of Elkton, such as through compassionate release, parole or community supervision, transfer furlough, non-transfer furlough, or transfer to another facility where appropriate measures (such as testing, single-cell placement, social distancing) were being taken. 455 F.Supp.3d 467.
The defendants failed to provide a list of class members and instead appealed the preliminary injunction to the Sixth Circuit on April 27. The appeal was assigned USCA Case Number 20-3447. In the Circuit Court, the defendants moved to stay pending appeal, which the court denied on May 4, 2020 on the grounds that the defendants’ time to comply with the April 22 order was about to expire, rendering any remaining harm slight. On April 29, the defendants also moved for the Sixth Circuit to stay the District Court's order, which the Sixth Circuit denied the following day.
Back in the District Court, on April 28, the defendants moved to stay pending appeal.
The plaintiffs then filed an emergency motion to compel the list of potential class members, which the court granted on April 29. The plaintiffs also moved to certify a class that would include all current and future people in post-conviction custody at Elkton, and a subclass of vulnerable people either over the age of 50 or with an underlying condition. On April 30, the defendants provided a list of class members. On May 6, the plaintiffs moved to enforce the preliminary injunction, claiming that the defendants failed to conduct the required evaluations and transfers.
On May 8, the District Court denied the defendant's motion to stay pending appeal on the grounds that the Sixth Circuit decided the legal issues underpinning a stay determination, a decision that was likely binding on the District Court. 2020 WL 2308441. The court also order the defendants to provide a specific reason as to why each class member was deemed ineligible for release or transfer.
As of May 19, approximately one in four inmates (24%) at Elkton had been infected with COVID-19. On May 19, the court noted that such a number was "unacceptable" and that the defendants had made only limited efforts to reduce the COVID-19 risks despite the preliminary injunction, and granted the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the preliminary injunction. 2020 WL 2542131. Specifically, the court ordered the defendants to file daily reports, indicating the number of COVID-19 tests performed and the results.
On May 21, the defendants applied for a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal of the Sixth Circuit decision to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court denied the application for stay on May 26. 140 S.Ct. 2800. They stated that the defendant was only seeking a stay of the April 22 preliminary injunction, which had been superseded by a newly issued order from the District Court enforcing the preliminary injunction and imposing additional measures. The Court noted that the defendant had not yet sought Sixth Circuit review of the May 19 order. 2020 WL 2644305.
On May 27, the defendants appealed the May 19 order enforcing the preliminary injunction to the Sixth Circuit. This second Sixth Circuit appeal was assigned USCA Case Number 20-3547. The Sixth Circuit refused to stay the order on June 1, but stated that the first appeal (USCA 20-3447) would be expedited on the schedule suggested by the parties. 2020 WL 2904706.
Back in the District Court, the defendants filed an emergency order to stay the May 19 order, which the court denied on June 4. 2020 WL 3000464. That same day, the defendants submitted a reply to the U.S. Supreme Court, stating that they expected to begin the transfer of the first group of individuals to other facilities on June 5, even before the oral argument scheduled on the same day. In light of this, they sought to stay the injunction until a decision is made by the Sixth Circuit, or by the Supreme Court, if necessary. That same day, the Supreme Court suspended the April 22 and May 19 orders pending the defendants' appeal for the Sixth Circuit. 2020 WL 2988458.
On June 9, the Sixth Circuit vacated the injunction on appeal in USCA 20-3447. 961 F.3d 829. The Sixth Circuit first found that jurisdiction was proper as the PLRA does not apply in habeas challenges. However, they ruled that the defendant, by implementing a six-phase plan to mitigate the risk of COVID-19, had responded reasonably to the risk and therefore defendants actions were not deliberately indifferent. Therefore, the Sixth Circuit found that “while the harm imposed by COVID-19 on inmates at Elkton ultimately [is] not averted,” the plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment rights had not been violated.
On June 5, George Winkleman, an individual housed at FCI Elkton, sought to intervene. On June 10, Eric Henderson, an immunosuppressed individual currently housed at FCI Elkton, also sought to intervene. Both motions were denied on July 23.
On July 2, the plaintiffs moved for expedited discovery, compelling the defendants to respond within 14 days due to the time-sensitivity of the case on July 2. The court granted the motion on August 6.
On July 19, the Sixth Circuit in USCA 20-3447 denied the defendants' motion to expedited the issuance of a mandate regarding the appeal.
On July 27, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. They argued that the plaintiffs did not have a habeas claim because they did not seek release from prison custody and their claims could be remedied through means other than release. They also argued that the plaintiffs failed to state an Eighth Amendment violation because they could not establish deliberate indifference. On August 20, the plaintiffs moved to amend the complaint and substitute class representatives.
After the defendants moved for summary vacatur, on September 17, in USCA 20-3547, the Sixth Circuit vacated the District Court's May 19 order and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.
From September 2020 through April 2021, the court granted numerous motions to stay all proceedings filed by the defendants. January 8, 2021, the parties filed a stipulated notice of dismissal for two of the plaintiffs. The stipulated dismissal was approved on January 11. On May 10, another notice of a stipulated dismissal was filed by the remaining two plaintiffs, which was approved on May 12. As a result of this order, no claims remained, and all of the plaintiffs' pending motions were terminated by the court. The case is now closed.
Chandler Hart-McGonigle - 11/22/2020
Averyn Lee - 09/25/2020
Zofia Peach - 03/18/2021
Nicholas Gillan - 11/22/2021
compress summary
