COVID-19 Summary: On April 9, 2020, the plaintiffs in this 44-year-old case filed an emergency motion for COVID-19 mitigation measures at a Maryland jail. They sought a release plan, testing, plans for testing and treatment, and the ability to social distance. On July 2, 2020, the court ordered the defendants to develop a written plan for taking care of inmates who were at a heightened risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19. The court ordered additional mitigation measures on July 21.
FULL SummaryThis case was brought in 1976 in the federal district court for the District of Maryland under Section 1983 by inmates at the Baltimore City Jail against both state and city officials of the Baltimore, Maryland prison system. The plaintiffs complained of overcrowding and conditions of confinement at the Baltimore City Jail, which resulted in a consent agreement setting capacity limitations, eliminating double celling and providing other services.
In April 1981, the case was consolidated with
Collins v. Schoonfield, a class action brought by pre-trial detainees of the Baltimore City Jail that had earlier resulted in an interim decree setting standards of confinement. Some of the conditions at issue in
Collins were over quality of food and medical care, religious freedom, access to books and other reading materials, jail facilities and policies that had an adverse affected on representation by counsel, and unnecessary restrictions on non-legal visits and phone calls. The decree was revised in 1984, 1986 and 1988. In 1991, the State assumed control of the Baltimore City Jail, requiring further modifications to the decree. These modifications were agreed upon in the 1993 Revised Consolidation Decree. The 1993 decree established requirements for housing, inmate services, communications, access to courts, grievances and discipline. The decree also required the designation of a Director of Court Compliance to monitor the implementation of the decree. The case was reassigned to Judge J. Frederick Motz and in 1994, for reasons that are not evident, given the new docket number 94-cv-02541 (the new docket begins with a direction for the clerk to institute a new case “beginning with pleading #619 in case JFM−76−1255” and to close that case).
At some point prior to 1994, the National Prison Project of the ACLU agreed to represent plaintiffs.
In 2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to address the excessive heat at the Women’s Detention Center of the Baltimore City Detention Center. On August 16, 2002, Judge Andre M. Davis granted a temporary restraining order addressing the issue. On August 22, 2002, the court issued a consent order that required the defendants to implement a “comprehensive protocol for intake screening to identify detainees who are susceptible to heat-related injury.”
In late 2003, the plaintiffs asked the court to restore the case to the active docket. Thereafter, on April 23, 2004, the defendants filed a renewed motion to terminate the revised consolidated decree. On August 31, 2004, the court restored the case to the active docket. Subsequently, the parties began conducting discovery and preparing for a hearing with regard to the defendants’ motion. The parties acknowledged that the defendants had made improvements, such as the air conditioning at the Women’s Detention Center, and that the parties desired and expected further improvements.
In 2009, the parties reached a partial settlement agreement (PSA), and the court approved the agreement on November 10, 2009. The agreement covered all areas of dispute, except for how to protect detainees with high security or high-medium security classifications from heat injury. The parties agreed to let the court resolve that issue. On April 6, 2010, the court approved the final partial settlement agreement (PSA).
In 2011, the case was reassigned to Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander, who approved an amendment to the partial settlement on May 8, 2012, settling all of the substantive matters and conditionally dismissing the case. On April 7, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees.
The PSA provided that, if the defendants failed to achieve compliance with its substantive agreements, Plaintiffs could file a motion to reopen the case within two years of the time of court approval. The PSA allows the defendants to oppose a reopening of the case, but only on the ground that the defendants had achieved compliance with its contested provisions. Under the amended PSA, the time for the plaintiffs to file a motion to reopen was June 30, 2013. But later, the parties stipulated to extensions of the PSA to June 3, 2015; the court approved those extensions on April 10, 2014, and March 24, 2015.
On October 23, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of noncompliance, formally informing the defendants of their contention that the jail remained noncompliant with the agreement, and entering into settlement discussions. No settlement was forthcoming, and on June 2, 2015, the day before the expiration of their right to reopen, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reopen the case, restore it to the active docket, and grant a preliminary injunction compelling improvements in several areas posing acute dangers to prisoner safety. The plaintiffs alleged a litany of noncompliant incidents, and argued that the failures not only violated the PSA but also the Eighth Amendment.
The parties entered into settlement talks and asked the court to stay the proceedings in the case. On October 26, 2015, the court granted the parties’ motion to stay.
On December 23, 2015, the parties reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval. Under the settlement, Maryland agreed to overhaul the jail’s health care system and make major improvements to the facilities, including accommodations for people with disabilities. To ensure compliance with the settlement, the parties agreed that the jail’s progress would be assessed by independent monitors. The Court would dismiss the case when all the requirements had been met, or in four years, unless the Court found that jail conditions still violated federal law. The defendants also agreed to pay $450,000 in plaintiff attorneys’ fees and costs.
On January 4, 2016, the court preliminarily approved the settlement, and on June 28, 2016, the court approved the final settlement and attorneys’ fees and costs. The court retained jurisdiction over the case as provided in the settlement agreement.
On February 7, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reopen the case to enforce the settlement agreement in response to the defendants’ lack of compliance regarding the medical or mental health provisions. The next day, the court granted the motion. In March, the parties had a mediation session with the judge and monitors regarding health care policies, procedures, staffing, and oversight mechanisms. This meeting led to the defendants hiring a new Chief of Health Strategy and Operations and Chief of Compliance and Integrity in early April 2018. Additionally, the defendants adopted a new electronic health record system, created new examination rooms for medical and mental health screening, and met with physicians from the University of Maryland Medical System to assist in reviewing current medical practices. These changes were intended to improve the defendants’ ability to comply with the settlement, as explained in the September 7, 2018 status report.
Following the September 7, 2018 status report, the parties filed motions to extend time as the defendants continued their efforts to comply with the settlement agreement.
A settlement conference was held on May 16, 2019 and the parties mutually agreed to an extension of the settlement agreement. On May 28, 2019, the court extended the settlement agreement by two years, to terminate on June 22, 2022, unless the defendants reached substantial compliance prior to that date. The plaintiffs’ motion to reopen the case was withdrawn and ordered moot as well. As of January 2020, the settlement agreement was still in place, the court retained jurisdiction, and this case was ongoing.
COVID-19 Litigation On April 9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for COVID-19 mitigation measures. They sought an order requiring the jail to:
- guarantee inmates the ability to socially distance;
- formulate a plan to release detainees;
- provide for regular universal testing of staff and inmates; and
- provide a written plan for monitoring and treating vulnerable people.
The following day, the plaintiffs notified the court that a staff member at the jail had tested positive for the virus. The court, however, held the emergency motion in abeyance and referred the parties to the magistrate judge for conference.
Following unsuccessful discussions between the parties, the plaintiffs moved on May 20, 2020 to return the emergency motion to the active docket.
On June 19, 2020, the court denied the emergency motion, but also ordered the parties to file a status report by June 30 with updated information on conditions in the jail. The court found that although the pandemic carried a substantial risk of serious harm to inmates, the jail had responded reasonably to the health and safety threats. It found that the jail had taken “extraordinary” measures to protect its inmates, including “posting bulletins to educate detainees on the symptoms of COVID-19; canceling visitation; providing all inmates with masks, soap, towels, and alcohol-based hand sanitizer; equipping staff with [personal protective equipment]; cleaning common areas twice per shift; performing frequent temperature checks; quarantining new detainees; isolating infected individuals in a separate unit; and, on at least one occasion, testing all detainees and staff.” While there were certainly further measures the jail could take, the Fourteenth Amendment required only a reasonable response, and the jail’s response had been reasonable.
Notably, the court rejected the jail’s other arguments for dismissal. Jail officials had argued that the emergency motion was not properly before the court, because the plaintiffs had not exhausted administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. (In fact, the plaintiffs had not even attempted to begin the administrative grievance process.) The court indicated, however, that the plaintiffs only had to exhaust
available administrative remedies; in the pandemic context, there were remedies available to guarantee timely protection from the threat of illness or death, so the PLRA would not bar the court from intervening. Jail officials had also argued that they had no authority under Maryland law to release inmates who had been committed to their custody by a state court. The court emphatically stated that it would have authority under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, if there were a constitutional violation, to order state officials to release prisoners.
On July 2, 2020, the court ordered the jail to develop a written plan for taking care of inmates who were at heightened risk for serious illness or death from COVID, because the June 30 status reports from the jail and from the plaintiffs had painted “starkly different portraits” of conditions in the jail. The jail had 2 weeks to complete the written plan, and both parties were to file another status report by July 20.
On July 17, 2020, the plaintiffs moved for enforcement of judgment. They alleged that the jail had consistently failed to meet its obligations under earlier settlement agreements, and stated that the jail had conceded as much on February 28, 2020. They requested that the court require the jail to submit a written report within 30 days detailing how it planned to fulfill its obligations. They also requested a 2-year extension of the agreement, to last until June 22, 2024.
On July 21, 2020, the court ordered the jail to take some additional mitigation measures: “Custody staff in close contact with detainees should be tested for COVID-19 on a weekly basis. In addition, each detainee should be provided with two masks.” Additional status reports were ordered, due by August 28, 2020.
Both the plaintiffs and defendants filed status reports regarding COVID-19 at Baltimore City Central Booking and Intake Center on August 28, 2020. The parties agreed on the number of individuals who had tested positive for OCVID: as of August 28, 91 staff members, 19 contractual staff, and 139 detainees had tested positive. The plaintiffs also contended in their status report that the defendants were failing to test enough, and failing to provide sufficient PPE or isolate detainees who tested positive for COVID-19. The plaintiffs asked the court to require the defendants to provide monthly status reports on the status of COVID-19 at the center.
As of October 25, the case remains ongoing.
Eoghan Keenan - 05/25/2005
Jessica Kincaid - 04/01/2016
Abigail DeHart - 10/22/2016
Emma Himes - 11/27/2019
Gregory Marsh - 07/31/2020
Justin Hill - 10/25/2020
compress summary
