459 F.Supp.3d 143
D.D.C.2020Background
- Plaintiffs are detainees and sentenced inmates at the D.C. Department of Corrections’ Central Detention Facility (CDF) and Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) suing DOC Director Quincy Booth and Warden Lennard Johnson in their official capacities for unconstitutional conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic (Fifth Amendment for pretrial detainees; Eighth Amendment for post-conviction detainees).
- Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO); the Court held virtual proceedings, ordered expedited disclosures, and appointed two court amici who conducted unannounced site visits and produced a report incorporated into the record.
- Amici and plaintiffs’ evidence documented elevated COVID-19 infection rates in DOC facilities, inconsistent or delayed implementation of social distancing, shortages/misuse of PPE and cleaning supplies, screening and temperature-taking problems, delays in medical response and contact tracing, and punitive/isolating practices that discouraged symptom reporting and restricted legal calls.
- Defendants submitted declarations asserting written policies (screening, quarantine, cleaning, limited recreation groups, weekly soap), but the record showed gaps between policy and practice and uncertain operationalization.
- The Court found plaintiffs had standing, a likelihood of success on the merits (pretrial detainees need not prove deliberate indifference), irreparable harm from COVID-19 risk, and that the public interest and equities favored injunctive relief.
- The TRO was granted in part: the Court ordered a suite of remedial measures (expedited sick-call triage and documentation; enforceable social distancing; PPE training and fitting; improved cleaning overseen by a sanitarian; timely contact-tracing and quarantine practices; access to showers, clothing, linens, and confidential legal calls for those in isolation), but denied immediate release of inmates and appointment of a downsizing expert at this time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | Plaintiffs face legally cognizable increased risk of COVID-19 infection; requested relief would reduce that risk | Relief sought would mainly benefit non-parties; named plaintiffs lack redressable injury for some relief | Plaintiffs have standing; risk of infection is cognizable and redressable by requested measures |
| Applicable constitutional standard for pretrial detainees | Due-process claim requires only an objective showing that conditions pose an excessive risk (no deliberate-indifference requirement) | Standards for due-process and Eighth Amendment are the same (both require deliberate indifference) | Kingsley/Bell reasoning adopted: pretrial detainees need not show deliberate indifference; objective-unreasonableness standard applies |
| Unreasonable risk / likelihood of success on merits | DOC conditions and elevated infection rates create an unreasonable risk; social distancing and other measures not effectively implemented | DOC has written policies and is taking steps; risk no greater than community | Plaintiffs likely to succeed: record shows elevated infection rates and failures in implementation, establishing an unreasonable risk; deliberate indifference also likely shown for Eighth Amendment claim |
| Relief requested (release and other injunctions) | Urgent population reduction and operational measures needed to reduce infection risk | Government discretion, existing release mechanisms and DOC actions underway; sweeping releases or expert-driven downsizing unnecessary now | Court ordered operational, health, and access measures but denied immediate population-wide releases and appointment of a downsizing expert at this time |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary-injunction standard requires showing likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015) (pretrial-detainee claims assessed under an objective-unreasonableness standard)
- Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993) (courts assess whether exposure to a risk is one society is unwilling to tolerate)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (constitutional limits on punitive conditions for pretrial detainees)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference requires subjective knowledge and disregard of a substantial risk)
- Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011) (releasing prisoners can benefit those remaining by reducing overcrowding-related risks)
- Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (discussion of TRO/preliminary-injunction standards)
- Daskalea v. District of Columbia, 227 F.3d 433 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (a written policy does not shield liability where the entity is deliberately indifferent)
- Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Vilsack, 808 F.3d 905 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (increased risk of illness is sufficient for standing)
- League of Women Voters v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (no meaningful distinction between mandatory and prohibitory injunctions)