960 F.3d 707
5th Cir.2020Background
- Wallace Pack Unit is a geriatric TDCJ facility housing ~1,248 inmates; roughly two-thirds are 65 or older and many have comorbidities.
- Most inmates are housed in large dormitories (50–100 inmates) with bunks in cubicles separated by waist-high barriers, making social distancing impossible.
- At the April 16 preliminary-injunction hearing there was one confirmed COVID-19 case; by May 28 TDCJ reported 191 infections at Pack and five deaths.
- The district court issued a preliminary injunction; the Fifth Circuit vacated that injunction, finding TDCJ had substantially complied with the district court’s ordered measures and remanded for permanent-injunction proceedings.
- Concurring opinions stressed the grave risk to elderly inmates and called for expedited factfinding at the district court; there is a disputed factual issue about exhaustion of administrative remedies under the PLRA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the preliminary injunction should remain in effect given changed conditions | Valentine: conditions remain dire; injunction remains necessary to protect inmates | TDCJ: has substantially complied with injunction measures; conditions have materially changed | Vacated the preliminary injunction; remanded for permanent-injunction proceedings to adjudicate current facts |
| Whether Valentine exhausted PLRA administrative remedies | Valentine: sought informal resolution and/or exhaustion was unavailable or completed | TDCJ: Plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies before filing | Court: left exhaustion factual dispute to district court to resolve on remand |
| Whether prisoners retain constitutional protections against unsafe conditions | Valentine: prison conditions violate constitutional rights; courts must protect inmates | TDCJ/motions panel: plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on merits (contrary view) | Court did not decide merits on vacatur; concurrences reaffirm that prisoners retain constitutional protections (citing Turner) |
| Whether the appellate court may consider subsequent factual developments (e.g., infection stats) | Valentine: court should consider updated outbreak data | TDCJ: updates are relevant and show remedial actions | Court: considered and took judicial notice of subsequent developments; used them in assessing substantial compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prisoners retain constitutional protections; deferential Turner test for prison regulations)
- In re Abbott, 954 F.3d 772 (5th Cir. 2020) (courts may take judicial notice of COVID-19 statistics and subsequent factual developments)
- Coleman v. Dretke, 409 F.3d 665 (5th Cir. 2005) (taking judicial notice of state agency’s website)
- Flight Engineer’s Int’l Ass’n v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 303 F.2d 5 (5th Cir. 1962) (noting appellate courts may take judicial notice of subsequent action on injunction review)
- Trevino v. Davis, 861 F.3d 545 (5th Cir. 2017) (motions-panel rulings are not binding on merits panels)
- Valentine v. Collier, 140 S. Ct. 1598 (2020) (Supreme Court mem. emphasizing urgency of COVID-related prisoner proceedings)