Anthony Mays v. Thomas Dart
974 F.3d 810
| 7th Cir. | 2020Background
- Class action by Cook County Jail detainees against Sheriff Thomas Dart alleging Fourteenth Amendment due‑process violations for failing to provide reasonably safe conditions during the COVID‑19 outbreak.
- The district court issued a temporary restraining order requiring testing policies, provision of soap/hand sanitizer, sanitization, and masks for quarantined detainees, but initially declined to mandate full social distancing in housing.
- Plaintiffs renewed a motion for a preliminary injunction; the district court converted the TRO to a preliminary injunction and added a policy barring double‑celling and group housing except for limited exceptions (e.g., suicide risk, medical needs).
- Sheriff Dart appealed the social‑distancing portion. The record showed the Sheriff had undertaken many measures (opened divisions, increased single‑cell housing, reduced dormitory capacity, procured PPE and rapid testing, and sought population reductions).
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the TRO‑derived sanitation, testing, and PPE requirements but reversed and vacated the injunction portion banning double‑celling/group housing because the district court committed legal errors in applying the objective‑reasonableness standard.
- The court identified three errors: (1) failing to assess the Sheriff’s conduct in its totality, (2) failing to defer adequately to correctional administrators on security/operational judgments, and (3) applying an incorrect “better than negligible” standard for likelihood of success on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court properly enjoined double‑celling and group housing to achieve social distancing | Double‑celling/group housing creates a heightened, constitutionally unacceptable risk of COVID‑19 transmission | Jail already implemented substantial mitigation; social‑distancing limits not fully feasible given security, space, and operational concerns | Reversed: injunction vacated as to housing—district court erred in analysis (totality, deference, standard) |
| Whether the district court properly converted TRO sanitation, testing, and PPE measures into a preliminary injunction | These measures are necessary and tailored to CDC guidance to prevent irreparable harm | Sheriff had policies and was taking steps; but some measures were already in place | Affirmed: court made detailed factual findings, considered totality, and closely followed CDC guidance |
| Proper standard for likelihood of success on preliminary injunction | Lower, sliding‑scale “better than negligible” standard (as applied by the district court) suffices | Higher showing required under Supreme Court precedent | Held: district court erred to rely on “better than negligible”; plaintiffs must show some likelihood of success (Winter/Nken standard/sliding scale applies) |
| Extent of judicial deference to correctional administrators on housing/security decisions | Public‑health risk demands emergency court‑ordered housing changes despite operational burdens | Courts must defer to prison administrators’ expertise and security judgments absent substantial evidence of exaggeration | Held: district court failed to afford required deference to jail administrators; this was a legal error affecting the housing injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015) (objective‑reasonableness standard for pretrial‑detainee claims)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (deference to prison administrators to preserve order and security)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (plaintiff seeking preliminary injunction must be likely to succeed on the merits)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay factors overlap with preliminary‑injunction standard; requires strong showing of likelihood of success)
- Miranda v. County of Lake, 900 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 2018) (applies Kingsley objective‑reasonableness to pretrial detainee medical claims)
- McCann v. Ogle County, 909 F.3d 881 (7th Cir. 2018) (objective‑reasonableness requires focus on totality of facts and circumstances)
- Hardeman v. Curran, 933 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2019) (extends Kingsley framework to conditions of confinement claims)
- Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Cty. of Burlington, 566 U.S. 318 (2012) (prison administrators have substantial discretion to devise reasonable solutions)