COVID-19 Summary: Four incarcerated individuals filed this class-action lawsuit against the Clayton County Jail based on conditions-of-confinement claims, as well as a habeas claim, a Rehabilitation Act claim, and an ADA claim. The suit remains ongoing.
Four individuals incarcerated in the Clayton County Jail filed this complaint against the Clayton County Sheriff, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, on July 1, 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic was sweeping through jails and prisons across the country, and the plaintiffs alleged that the jail was ignoring the health and safety of its inmates. Instead of decreasing its population, like jails and prisons across the country and across Georgia, the jail was increasing its population. The jail was infested with mold, mildew, cockroaches, and rodents, inmates were told to use underwear for face coverings, and many were forced to sleep on the floor next to open toilets. Social distancing was nonexistent, jail staff did not educate inmates about COVID-19 risks or prevention, and inmates who became ill were waiting up to a week to be treated by medical staff.
Represented by the ACLU, the ACLU of Georgia, and the Southern Center for Human Rights, the plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Because their incarceration was unconstitutional, they argued, the court should issue a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §§2241 and 2243. They also brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, and sought a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. §2201-2202. The petition was assigned to Judge Eleanor L. Ross, but she later recused herself and the case was reassigned to Judge J. P. Boulee.
The plaintiffs sought certification of two classes, each with two subclasses:
the Pretrial Class, composed of all inmates who were at the jail awaiting trial, including:- a Medically Vulnerable Subclass (inmates with medical conditions which placed them at higher risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19), and
- a Disabilities Subclass (inmates whose medical conditions also qualified as disabilities under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act); and
the Post-Adjudication Class, composed of all inmates who were serving time in the prison following conviction of a crime, including:- a Medically Vulnerable Subclass (inmates with medical conditions which placed them at higher risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19), and
- a Disabilities Subclass (inmates whose medical conditions also qualified as disabilities under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act).
They sought release or transfer for all members of the Medically Vulnerable and Disabilities Subclasses; an injunction requiring the jail to adopt measures to mitigate the risk of COVID-19 infection for the remaining inmates (including social distancing and personal protective equipment); a writ of habeas corpus directing the immediate transfer or release of the Medically Vulnerable and Disability Subclasses; and attorneys’ fees and costs.
The court denied the request for preliminary injunctive relief on July 9, 2020, stating that such a request must be made by separate motion, not in the complaint. The plaintiffs filed a separate motion for a preliminary injunction on July 27, 2020.
The defendants moved to dismiss the claims on August 3. The defendants argued that they were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and that the plaintiffs failed to state both a habeas claim and an ADA claim. Before ruling on the motion, the Court granted the plaintiffs motion for an expedited discovery. On September 16, 2020, Magistrate Judge Christopher Bly recommended that one plaintiffs claims be dismissed as he had been released from jail, but advised that the other claims should proceed.
As of October 30, Judge Boulee had not granted or denied the motion and the case remains ongoing.
Gregory Marsh - 07/29/2020
compress summary
