Michael Postawko v. Missouri Dept of Corrections
910 F.3d 1030
| 8th Cir. | 2018Background
- Three named MDOC inmates sued under the Eighth Amendment and ADA alleging MDOC/Corizon policies denied adequate screening and DAA antiviral treatment for chronic Hepatitis C (HCV).
- HCV can progress to irreversible cirrhosis or liver cancer; new direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) cure >90% if provided timely.
- Plaintiffs alleged MDOC (and named officials/contractor) used APRI scores as the exclusive gatekeeper, denying DAAs to inmates with APRI < 2.0 and relying on cost-based protocols.
- Plaintiffs sought class certification for all current and future MDOC inmates diagnosed with chronic HCV and injunctive/declaratory relief (revised injunctive relief: prohibit nonmedical denial/delay of DAAs).
- District court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class; defendants appealed under Rule 23(f). The Eighth Circuit affirmed certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 23(a) prerequisites met (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy) | Plaintiffs: class >2,000, single MDOC screening/treatment policy causes common constitutional injury; named plaintiffs typical | Defendants: individualized medical differences and need more evidentiary showing at certification | Court: numerosity, commonality, typicality satisfied; class certification not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether Rule 23(b)(2) satisfied for injunctive/declaratory relief | Plaintiffs: MDOC acted/refused to act on grounds generally applicable (uniform APRI-based protocol), so classwide injunctive relief is appropriate | Defendants: policy is not uniform; relief would be overly individualized and implicate state prison administration | Court: (b)(2) satisfied — single injunctive remedy can address uniform policy; federalism concerns do not preclude certification at this stage |
| Whether district court improperly relied on evidence submitted with plaintiffs’ reply | Plaintiffs supplemented evidence showing denials based solely on APRI; district court allowed sur-reply | Defendants: plaintiffs’ reply evidence should be disregarded / more rigorous evidentiary threshold required at certification | Held: district court acted within discretion to consider reply evidence and allow sur-reply; rigorous analysis occurred |
| Whether ADA claims undermine certification because ADA cannot challenge adequacy of medical services | Plaintiffs: ADA claim alleges classwide discrimination in access to treatment and screening | Defendants: ADA not a vehicle to challenge medical service adequacy; merits undermine certification | Held: ADA merits arguments are beyond the limited scope of a Rule 23(f) certification review and thus not resolved here |
Key Cases Cited
- Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (district court must conduct a "rigorous analysis" under Rule 23)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (Rule 23 is not a mere pleading standard; commonality requirement)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (plaintiff must be prepared to prove Rule 23 requirements with evidence)
- Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (merits considered only insofar as relevant to Rule 23 prerequisites)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
- Yates v. Collier, 868 F.3d 354 (5th Cir.) (class certification proper where policy poses common risk of serious harm)
- Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657 (9th Cir.) (injunctive relief may be appropriate where policy allegedly risks serious harm to all inmates)
- Bouaphakeo v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1036 (class proof of common policy can distinguish from Wal-Mart)