459 F.Supp.3d 411
D. Conn.2020Background
- Four inmates at FCI Danbury (two women’s facilities and a men’s prison) with CDC-defined COVID-19 risk factors filed a §2241 habeas petition and emergency motion seeking expedited review for transfer to home confinement/compassionate release and improved mitigation measures.
- FCI Danbury experienced a significant COVID-19 outbreak; the Attorney General’s April 3, 2020 memo (and the CARES Act) authorized/urged expansive, expedited use of home confinement for vulnerable inmates.
- The Warden reported limited use of that authority: only 159 inmates reviewed and 21 placed on home confinement from a ~1,000-inmate population; no compassionate-release referrals to General Counsel despite 241 requests received.
- Petitioners allege inadequate screening, testing, isolation/quarantine, sanitation, PPE, and delays or refusals in processing home confinement/compassionate-release requests such that vulnerable inmates face substantial risk of serious harm or death.
- The court found factual disputes about many day-to-day mitigation steps but concluded petitioners made a preliminary showing of Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference with respect to the Warden’s limited use of home confinement and the handling of compassionate-release requests for the medically vulnerable subclass.
- The court granted in part a TRO requiring an accelerated, individualized review process (specific deadlines and reporting) prioritizing medically vulnerable inmates for home confinement/compassionate release and ordered expedited discovery and a preliminary-injunction hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Availability of habeas relief to obtain transfer to home confinement (scope of §2241) | §2241 can seek transfer to home confinement (not necessarily full release); injunctive habeas relief is proper to avoid Eighth Amendment harm | BOP statutory discretion (18 U.S.C. §3621(b)/§3624) and sentencing-finality principles bar judicial micromanagement or ordering placement | Court: §2241 may be used here to challenge conditions that effectively challenge the fact of confinement; directing BOP to exercise its existing authority (not modifying sentences) is permissible at this stage |
| 2. Applicability of PLRA §3626 and its restrictions on population-reduction relief | Petition challenges fact/duration of confinement for vulnerable subclass and thus is exempt from PLRA constraints | PLRA and its prerequisites (three-judge court, narrow relief) bar court-ordered release-type relief | Court: PLRA inapplicable because petition challenges the fact of confinement for the medically vulnerable (thus outside the PLRA’s definition of civil actions about prison conditions) |
| 3. Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference — is BOP’s limited use of home confinement/compassionate release unconstitutional? | Warden’s slow, rigid criteria and near-zero compassionate-release approvals demonstrate deliberate indifference to substantial risk to medically vulnerable inmates | Warden asserts mitigation measures (screening, testing, quarantine, PPE) and discretionary prioritization are being followed; home confinement is discretionary and must weigh public safety | Court: Petitioners likely to succeed on merits as to the medically vulnerable subclass — given AG directives and CARES Act, failure to meaningfully prioritize home confinement/compassionate release constitutes likely deliberate indifference; TRO granted to reform review process |
| 4. Exhaustion of administrative remedies for compassionate release/home confinement | Exhaustion should be excused because delay is prejudicial and administrative process is practically futile here | Plaintiffs must exhaust or follow statutory procedural prerequisites (and BOP process/regulations) | Court: Excused exhaustion for relief ordering expedited consideration of home confinement/compassionate release because undue delay would cause irreparable harm; ordered immediate administrative actions and reporting |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to inmate safety)
- Mapp v. Reno, 241 F.3d 221 (2d Cir. 2001) (habeas bail authority in immigration and criminal habeas contexts)
- Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (proper habeas respondent is immediate custodian/warden)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (finality of sentences and limited post-sentencing modification authority)
- Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698 (2d Cir. 1998) (deliberate indifference standard in medical/conditions claims)
- Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468 (2d Cir. 1996) (duty to protect inmates from infectious disease)
- Triestman v. United States, 124 F.3d 361 (2d Cir. 1997) (avoid construction that raises serious constitutional questions; statutory interpretation canon)