COVID-19 Summary: This is a class action filed by inmates in the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison, seeking the release of medically vulnerable people and appropriate hygiene and social distancing measures for those still in the facility. The court denied to enter a temporary restraining order on July 3, and on February 4, 2021 the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss.
On May 5, 2020, an incarcerated person in the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison filed this pro se action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama via a letter that outlined the conditions in the facility and medical concerns related to COVID-19. On May 27, now represented by the Fair Fight Initiative, the Advancement Project National, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and private counsel, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. In the new complaint, the plaintiffs sued the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison and the City of Baton Rouge under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the federal habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging violations of their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Specifically, they alleged that their continued detention in unsafe conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic was a violation of their rights, requesting the release of certain vulnerable individuals, as well as improved hygiene and social distancing measures. The case was assigned to Judge Brian A. Jackson and referred to Magistrate Judge Scott D. Johnson.
The plaintiffs asserted that, as of May 14, "[t]here have been at least 93 confirmed COVID-19 cases in the EBRPP . . . but the jail’s lack of meaningful testing leaves no doubt that this number is grossly undercounted." Moreover, the plaintiffs contended that "the jail has chosen to warehouse detainees who test positive for or exhibit symptoms of COVID-19 in a building that has been condemned since 2018."
That same day, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class, seeking to represent all those who were, or would be, held at the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison, as well as the following subclasses: the "Pretrial Subclass," which contained all those who were currently held in the facility who had not yet been convicted; the "Post-Conviction Subclass," which contained all those who had been sentenced; the "Medically Vulnerable Subclass," which included all those who were over the age of 65, or who were particularly at risk due to an underlying medical condition.
On May 28, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for temporary restraining order, requesting the release of all those in the Medically Vulnerable Subclass.
On June 5, both defendants filed motions opposing the temporary restraining order; these motions were refiled on June 8 due to filing errors.
On July 3, Judge Jackson denied the motion for temporary restraining order, stating that while the plaintiffs were requesting habeas relief, they were actually seeking remedy for constitutionally deficient conditions under the Eighth Amendment. Furthermore, Judge Jackson found that it was "unlikely that Petitioners could establish a claim of subjective deliberate indifference," because of the measures the defendants had taken to protect inmates from COVID-19.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 28, arguing that the plaintiffs did not have standing (due to the named plaintiff and others no longer being incarcerated), that they had failed to exhaust available remedies, and that they could not show a pervasive pattern of serious deficiencies in providing for their basic needs. On August 18, the plaintiffs responded, arguing that they had standing to bring their claims and that they had brought claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The city defendants also filed a motion to dismiss on October 23.
On February 4, 2021, Judge Jackson granted both motions to dismiss, finding that Defendants had made efforts to implement COVID mitigation measures, supplying masks, providing cleaning supplies and soap, and conducting universal temperature checks and COVID-19 tests. Ultimately, Judge Jackson concluded that the plaintiffs had not properly demonstrated subjective deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Caitlin Kierum - 10/26/2020
Tessa McEvoy - 02/18/2021
compress summary
