Case: Maney v. Brown
6:20-cv-00570 | U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
Filed Date: April 6, 2020
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
On April 6, 2020, prisoners in the Oregon Department of Corrections ("ODOC") filed this lawsuit against the governor of Oregon and several Oregon DOC officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Represented by private counsel, the Oregon Innocence Center, and the Oregon Justice Resource Center, the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their Eighth Amendment rights, as well as violations of the Oregon Constitution. Specifically, they claimed that ODOC's lack of preventative measures, testing, and treatment constituted deliberate indifference to the serious risk that COVID-19 posed to the entire class. The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman.
In their request for an injunction, the plaintiffs outlined their desired relief, which included: adequate spacing of inmates (at least 6 ft apart) to maintain proper social distancing, assembling of a three-judge panel to reduce the number of prisoners if other remedies prove inadequate, the institution of a safety plan to prevent additional outbreaks, providing access to disinfecting solutions to clean objects and areas, providing COVID-19 testing, waiving medical co-pays for those experiencing symptoms, waiving charges for medical grievances, preventing retaliation from the defendants for reporting symptoms or seeking redress, providing single-cell quarantine of persons who have come in contact with someone who has coronavirus, isolation with proper medical checks for those with symptoms, and safe housing for the class members without incorporating disciplinary characteristics to such housing moves.
On May 12, the plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. The defendants responded to this motion on May 22, stating that they were taking "extreme measures" to mitigate the dangers of COVID-19, and that the plaintiffs had not shown that they were likely success on the merits, a risk of irreparable harm, or that it was in the public interest to grant relief. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 20, adding claims for monetary damages on behalf of those who had contracted COVID-19. Magistrate Judge Beckerman entered an order on June 1, denying the motion for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, finding that the defendants had responded reasonably to the risks posed by COVID-19. 2020 WL 2839423. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint June 26.
On August 3, the defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment, requesting summary judgment on the damages claims and the entirety of the plaintiffs' negligence claims on the basis of qualified immunity. The plaintiffs filed a motion in opposition to summary judgment on October 3, arguing that qualified immunity did not bar their suit and that discretionary immunity was not appropriate.
The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on December 15, 2020. 2020 WL 7364977. The court held that the plaintiffs’ negligence claims involving public policy decisions were barred by discretionary immunity, but that the plaintiffs’ challenges to the implementation and enforcement of such decisions were not. The court specifically found issues of fact remained regarding the defendants’ alleged failures to implement and enforce the State’s mask, testing, and quarantine policies; to screen employees for COVID-19 and exposure; to provide adequate sanitation and disinfection; to train staff to require adequate sanitation and disinfection; and to ensure adequate social distancing. Lastly, the court held that the plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claims were not barred by qualified immunity because the plaintiffs had a “clearly established right...to be free from heightened exposure to a serious, easily communicable disease.” Whether that right had been violated was a question for the factfinder.
On January 21, 2021 the plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and a motion to certify a "Vaccine Class" including "all adults in custody housed at Oregon Department of Corrections facilities (ODOC) who had not been offered COVID-19 vaccinations." The plaintiffs argued that class-wide relief was necessary because the defendants were vaccinating corrections officers and a few medically vulnerable adults in custody, as well as older adults and teachers, but had not announced plans to vaccinate the remainder of the ODOC population. On January 22, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.
On February 2, 2021 the court granted plaintiff's motion for provisional class certification and motion for a preliminary injunction and ordered further distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine. The court enjoined the defendants from excluding inmates in ODOC from vaccinations and provisionally certified the vaccine class of all individuals who had not yet been offered a COVID-19 vaccination. 2021 WL 354384. The court acknowledged the Prison Litigation Reform Act's (PLRA) prospective relief provisions but did not make findings related to it.
On May 3, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class and a fourth amended complaint. The proposed "Damages Class" included "all adults incarcerated in Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) facilities (1) were incarcerated on or after February 1, 2020; (2) while incarcerated, tested positive or were otherwise diagnosed with COVID-19; and (3) if they became incarcerated after February 1, 2020, tested positive or were otherwise diagnosed with COVID-19 at least 14 days after they entered ODOC custody," as well as a "Wrongful Death Class" which included: "the estates of those adults incarcerated at ODOC facilities continuously since February 1, 2020, who died during the Wrongful Death Class period, and for whom COVID-19 caused or contributed to their death." The simultaneously filed amended complaint alleged constitutional and state law violations against Oregon's governor, several ODOC officials and the state of Oregon.
On July 1, the plaintiffs requested the release of medical records for the decedents in the proposed Wrongful Death Class and notice to emergency contacts regarding the release of medical records. The defendants opposed the motion, stating the court did not have authority to give pre-certification notice to putative class members, that the medical records should not be released without affirmative written consent, and that it was unclear whether the emergency contacts were able to consent to disclosure; the matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman.
The defendants filed motions to dismiss and to strike on July 2, 2021.
Magistrate Judge Beckerman granted the motion in part on August 13, 2021, allowing the plaintiffs to send a notice to emergency contacts and known family members and authorizing the use of medical records upon production of written authorizations.
On September 28, Judge Beckerman denied the defendants' motion to strike the allegations from the complaint regarding failure to release individuals from custody during the COVID-19 pandemic and granted the plaintiffs' request to compel a list of individuals who had tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. In its opinion, the court found that the plaintiffs' claims related to the prioritization and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines were moot because vaccines had already been available to all individuals; and granted the motion to dismiss regarding the injunctive relief claims on behalf of the Vaccine Class. Regarding the personal liability claims against the Governor and Director, the court refused to dismiss the claims, finding the plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts to suggest a causal connection between the defendants and policies at ODOC. Finally, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss one of the plaintiffs, as they had been released from custody and had not tested positive for COVID-19, and therefore was not a member of the Damages Class. 2021 WL 449266.
The plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint on October 5; the defendants filed a motion to dismiss in response on November 2. That same day, the plaintiffs filed a sixth amended complaint.
On February 8, 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the vaccine priority claim because the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act ("PREP Act") provided immunity for any loss caused by prioritization or allocation of the COVID-19 vaccine. 2022 WL 377900. The court found that the Fourth Amended Declaration to the PREP Act did not extend immunity to the situation in the case, where the defendants had excluded individuals from the vaccine priority group contrary to their own public health guidance and that of the CDC. The court did, however, dismiss the vaccine priority claims against all other defendants other than the Governor and the Director of the Public Health Authority.
The Director of the Public Health Authority appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit on March 9, 2022. The district court entered a partial stay of proceedings pending the appeal.
On April 1, 2022, the court granted the motion for class certification and certified the Damages Class and Wrongful Death Class.
The Ninth Circuit denied the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on May 26, 2022. The same day, the Ninth Circuit declined to hear the defendants’ appeal of the District Court’s certification of the Damages Class and Wrongful Death Class, allowing both classes to stand.
On October 31, 2022, the defendants' submitted a motion to bar the deposition of Governor Kate Brown. The court ruled on the motion on November 23, 2022, finding the plaintiffs hadn’t met their burden of demonstrating extraordinary circumstances sufficient to justify taking Governor Brown’s depositions. The court ordered the plaintiffs to first pursue less intrusive discovery methods such as deposing Governor Brown’s staff or serving interrogatories. Governor Brown’s deposition was barred prior to January 9, 2023, but the court declined to bar it altogether, leaving the option open for the plaintiffs to renew the request after pursuing less intrusive discovery methods.
Following several months of discovery, the plaintiffs filed another motion to compel the deposition of Governor Kate Brown on April 10, 2023. The court granted the motion to compel on June 7, finding that her testimony was essential and not otherwise obtainable, because no one else could testify to Governor Brown’s knowledge with respect to the heightened risk that COVID-19 presented in the custodial setting and the actions she did or did not take with that knowledge. 2023 WL 3866761. On June 27, 2023, the court granted a stay of the deposition, pending a decision on the defendants’ petition for a writ of mandamus from the Ninth Circuit. The defendants filed the writ on July 6; the Ninth Circuit issued their decision on July 24, 2023, finding that the defendants’ presented issues that warranted an answer, ordering further briefing from parties.
In September 2023, the plaintiffs sought to file a seventh amended complaint.
On November 7, 2023, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman granted plaintiffs leave to file a Seventh Amended Complaint, which became the operative complaint. The amended complaint reflected developments in the litigation, including the certified Damages and Wrongful Death Classes and the dismissal of claims for prospective injunctive relief, while continuing to assert Eight Amendment claims, negligence, and wrongful death claims arising from the defendants’ alleged response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court also modified the case schedule, allowing supplemental expert reports addressing prison ventilation and Oregon’s early-release program and establishing deadlines for additional expert discovery and any related Daubert motions.
On February 13, 2024, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of former Governor Kate Brown’s and former Oregon Health Authority Director Patrick Allen’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ vaccine-prioritization damages claim. The court held that the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act immunized former Governor Kate Brown and former Oregon Department of Corrections Director Patrick Allen from Oregon’s allocation of COVID-19 source vaccines, including plaintiffs’ constitutional claims challenging the State's decision to prioritize correctional officers over incarcerated individuals for vaccination. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Following remand, plaintiffs stipulated to dismiss all claims against Patrick Allen. On March 20, 2024, the district court entered judgment dismissing Allen from the case with prejudice and without an award of fees or costs.
On April 10, 2024, the district court issued a comprehensive opinion resolving numerous dispositive motions. 729 F.Supp.3d 1087. The court granted defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on claims against defendant Ken Jeske, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on claims against Governor Brown, denied defendants’ request to modify the certified class definitions, denied defendants’ motion challenging plaintiffs’ state-law damages claims, denied without prejudice defendants’ motion concerning Oregon Tort Claims Act damages limitations. The court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on defendants’ affirmative defenses. As a result, substantial portions of plaintiffs’ constitutional, negligence, and wrongful death claims remained for trial.
On April 19, 2024, the court resolved several Daubert motions governing expert testimony for trial. 2024 WL 1695083. The court excluded the testimony of plaintiffs’ expert John Pfaff, limited portions of Dr. Homer Venters’ testimony, granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. David Fleming and Philip Stanley, denied plaintiffs’ motion to exclude defendants’ expert Dr. Kevin Cahill, and denied plaintiffs’ motion to strike Cahill’s declaration.
The parties subsequently pursued additional appellate proceedings. On May 21, 2024, the Ninth Circuit vacated its earlier memorandum disposition denying defendants’ petition for a writ of mandamus concerning Governor Brown’s deposition and dismissed the mandamus petition as moot. The court also denied rehearing and rehearing en banc.
Following additional evidentiary proceedings, on September 5, 2024, the district court denied plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the opinions of defendants’ engineering expert and denied defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs’ supplemental expert report.
On June 30, 2025, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order at issue in defendants’ interlocutory appeal, and the mandate issued on June 17, 2026.
Following issuance of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate, the parties reached a proposed class settlement. On June 24, 2026, plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The proposed settlement resolved the remaining claims against the State defendants and provided for injunctive relief addressing the Oregon Department of Corrections’ response to future infectious disease outbreaks, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiffs also sought appointment of a class administrator and approval of a notice plan for class members.
On June 25, 2026, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman granted plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval. The court preliminarily approved the settlement, appointed a class administrator, approved the proposed class notice, and scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs for January 11, 2027. The court also scheduled a final fairness hearing for October 18, 2027.
Pursuant to the settlement, plaintiffs stipulated to dismiss without prejudice their claims against the individual defendants. On July 2, 2026, the court entered an order dismissing defendants Kate Brown, Colette Peters, Heidi Steward, Mike Gower, Mark Nooth, Rob Persson, Ken Jeske, Joe Bugher, and Gary Russell without prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs except as otherwise provided in the settlement agreement. Several class members subsequently filed objections to the proposed settlement.
As of August 2026, the proposed class settlement awaits final approval.
Summary Authors
Niam Vora (8/7/2026)
Becca Rogers (12/25/2020)
Tessa McEvoy (2/20/2021)
Caitlin Kierum (4/2/2022)
Simran Takhar (10/24/2023)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17047797/parties/maney-v-state-of-oregon/
Beckerman, Stacie F (Oregon)
Abercrombie, Nicole A.W. (Oregon)
Armstrong, Shannon L (Oregon)
Asai, Kristin Mariko (Oregon)
Bell, Daniel (Oregon)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17047797/maney-v-state-of-oregon/
Last updated Aug. 7, 2026, 12:43 a.m.
Docket for: Maney v. State of Oregon
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Healthcare Access and Reproductive Issues
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: April 6, 2020
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Class of all prisoners in the Oregon Department of Corrections who are at greater risk of death or severe illness because of their age and/or underlying medical conditions; Class of individuals who had died, due to COVID-19 conditions, while in ODOC during a limited time period
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
State
Governor of the State of Oregon
Oregon Department of Corrections
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
District of Oregon 6:20-cv-00570
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 22-35218
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Sanitation / living conditions
COVID-19:
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Medical/Mental Health Care:
Case Summary of Maney v. Brown, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/17479/ (last updated 10/24/2023).