COVID-19 Summary: This is a putative class action brought on April 20, 2020, by five detainees at the Connecticut Department of Correction, seeking release from detention or transfer to home confinement due to elevated health risks in light of the virus. The class was certified on June 12. On July 17, the parties entered into a settlement agreement which provided for a variety of specific mitigation measures to improve COVID-19-related sanitation, hygiene, testing, and medical monitoring at every Connecticut DOC facility, and discretionary release that prioritizes prisoners who are 65 or older, or with a medical score of 4 or 5. The agreement was approved and the case was dismissed on July 22.
On April 20, 2020, five individuals held at the Connecticut Department of Correction (DOC) filed a putative class action at the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, ACLU of Connecticut and private counsel, the plaintiffs brought this lawsuit as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. under § 2241, and as an injunctive and declaratory action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201-02. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the conditions of confinement posed an unreasonable risk of COVID-19 in violation of detainees’ Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. They alleged that the defendants' failure to implement CDC-mandated guidelines had resulted in a surge of COVID-19 cases at the DOC, and that those detainees had been transferred to isolation units unfit to serve as medical correctional facilities.The case was assigned to Judge Charles S Haight, then reassigned to Judge Janet Bond Arterton on April 27.
The plaintiffs filed this action on behalf of all people who are, or will be, held in DOC, via a "Pre-adjudication Class" and a "Post-adjudication Class." These classes, which represent an estimated 11,840 people, are further grouped into subclasses, which are: the “Medically Vulnerable Pre-adjudication Subclass,” comprised of medically vulnerable detainees awaiting the adjudication of their charges, and the “Medically Vulnerable Post-adjudication Subclass,” comprised of those currently serving a criminal sentence. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, and/or a writ of habeas corpus requiring the immediate release of both subclasses, as well as a plan for mitigation efforts in compliance with CDC guidelines, to be overseen by a qualified public health expert. In the alternative of the immediate release, the petitioners sought an expedited review of the complaint.
On April 27, the plaintiffs submitted a motion for TRO requesting that the plan for mitigation efforts to be submitted in three days, as well as weekly reports of medically vulnerable populations held at the DOC. The defendants submitted a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on May 1, claiming that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust available habeas remedies and administrative remedies under §1983 and the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
The motion to dismiss was denied on May 6, noting that the normal grievance process was “practically . . . incapable of use” for COVID-19 purposes, due to the imminent health threat the virus posed. 2020 WL 2198279. The case was then referred to Judge William I Garfinkel for the purpose of expediting scheduling and discovery.
On May 10, the plaintiffs also submitted a motion for a preliminary injunction, requesting similar demands as in the motion for TRO. On May 18, the defendants claimed that they had already significantly reduced the inmate population in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (1,810 detainees or 14.6% of the total population), and implemented evaluations for early release.
Between June 1-6, the parties had settlement conferences before Magistrate Judge Garfinkel. Pursuant to their settlement agreement, the parties jointly sought class certification on June 11; the proposed class was “[a]ll persons who were incarcerated in a DOC facility from March 1, 2020, or are incarcerated, or in the future will be so incarcerated, until the termination date of this Agreement, December 31, 2020.” Class certification was granted on June 12. On June 19, the court directed notice to the class.
On July 2, Rupert A. Thompson, an individual held at the Connecticut DOC, sought to intervene. Between July 2-13, over fifty individual plaintiffs submitted various objections to the settlement agreement, such as a lack of notice regarding the class and sought to opt-out, claiming that the agreement did not address the needs of the entire inmate population. Another individual held at the facility sought to intervene on July 13.
On July 17, the defendants sought an order finding compliance with the order giving notice to the class and for a finding of adequacy of the notice given. The same day, the parties sought approval of their settlement agreement. In the settlement agreement, the parties agreed to a variety of specific mitigation measures to improve COVID-19-related sanitation, hygiene, testing, and medical monitoring at every Connecticut DOC facility, and discretionary release that prioritized prisoners who are 65 or older, or with a medical score of 4 or 5. A five-person monitoring panel was to (1) oversee adherence to COVID-19-related correctional public health standards and to (2) make real-time, publicly available, recommendations to DOC regarding its COVID-19 mitigation efforts. The agreement also outlined a dispute resolution procedure in front of Judge Garfinkel in the event of defendants’ non-compliance with the measures in the Agreement.
On July 20, the court denied the post-notice motions of class members seeking to opt-out, as they requested individualized relief. The same day, a hearing on the settlement agreement was held, and the settlement was approved the following day.
The case was dismissed on July 22. Several individuals continued to object to the settlement in August and September.
Averyn Lee - 09/23/2020
compress summary
