Valentine v. Collier
993 F.3d 270
| 5th Cir. | 2021Background
- Plaintiffs Laddy Valentine and Richard King (elderly inmates) sued TDCJ and Pack Unit warden/Executive Director on behalf of three certified classes (General, High-Risk, Mobility-Impaired) alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference and ADA/RA failures during a major COVID-19 outbreak at the Wallace Pack Unit.
- At trial the Pack Unit had ~1,132 inmates (≈800 over 65); by trial >497 inmates tested positive, 74 hospitalized, 19 died. Plaintiffs challenged TDCJ’s testing, distancing, sanitation, PPE, and accommodations for mobility-impaired inmates.
- TDCJ adopted Policy B-14.52 (March 20, 2020) based on CDC guidance, revised it repeatedly, implemented strike-team (mass) testing starting May 12, added handwashing stations, electrostatic sprayers, masks and cohorting; some measures occurred during or just before trial.
- The district court found deliberate indifference and ADA/RA violations and entered a sweeping 17-part permanent injunction requiring written plans, weekly testing, improved hygiene access (including hand sanitizer for mobility-impaired inmates), social-distancing measures, audits, and other remedies.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed and rendered judgment for Defendants, holding Plaintiffs failed to show entitlement to a permanent injunction because defendants had not recklessly ignored the risk, implemented many remedial measures (including post-trial weekly testing), and Plaintiffs failed to prove the ADA prima facie failure-to-accommodate element.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Collier and Herrera were deliberately indifferent in violation of the Eighth Amendment | Officials knowingly disregarded a substantial risk from COVID-19 by failing to adopt/implement adequate testing, distancing, sanitation, mask enforcement, and unit-specific planning | TDCJ adopted expert-driven Policy B-14.52, relied on CMHCC, implemented many mitigation measures when resources allowed, and did not recklessly disregard risk | Reversed: no deliberate indifference shown given the record and remedial steps (including actions taken during/after trial) |
| Whether a permanent injunction was appropriate | Plaintiffs needed forward-looking equitable relief because defendants would continue to disregard inmates’ health absent an injunction | Injunction unwarranted where record does not show reasonable likelihood of future transgressions and defendants acted reasonably under constraints | Reversed: permanent injunction abused district court’s discretion; plaintiffs failed to show success on the merits or entitlement to prospective relief |
| Whether TDCJ violated Title II ADA and Section 504 RA by failing to accommodate mobility-impaired inmates (hand hygiene/hand sanitizer) | Mobility-impaired inmates cannot maintain hand hygiene because they must touch wheelchairs/walkers after washing and need access to hand sanitizer/other accommodations | TDCJ provided soap and handwashing stations; plaintiffs did not request an accommodation or show the limitation was open, obvious, and known to TDCJ | Held for Defendants on ADA/RA: plaintiffs failed to prove the knowledge/request element and thus did not show a prima facie failure-to-accommodate |
| Whether reliance on healthcare experts and unwritten practices (testing/contact tracing) can excuse lack of written plans/compliance regime | Written, unit-specific plans and a compliance regime were required; lack thereof showed systemic indifference | Policy was crafted by statutorily delegated healthcare experts; unwritten practices were implemented reasonably; additional written plans not dispositive of deliberate indifference | Held for Defendants: delegation to CMHCC and evolving remedial measures were reasonable; absence of written plans alone did not establish deliberate indifference |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference requires subjective awareness and disregard of substantial risk)
- United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006) (Title II of the ADA applies to prison conditions overlapping with Eighth Amendment protections)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (distinguishing official-capacity suits and Ex parte Young exception for prospective relief)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (official-capacity suits seeking prospective relief may proceed against state officials)
- Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 2006) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard in the Fifth Circuit)
- Ball v. LeBlanc, 792 F.3d 584 (5th Cir. 2015) (evidence and notice required to support official knowledge of constitutional violations)
- Swain v. Junior, 961 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2020) (courts should not find liability when officials are ‘‘doing their best’’ under pandemic constraints)