Filed Date: April 6, 2020
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
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.
On June 1, Magistrate Judge Beckerman entered an order, 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.
On June 26, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.
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 due to 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 have 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.
On July 2, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike.
On August 13, 2021, Magistrate Judge Beckerman granted the motion in part, 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. The district court entered a partial stay of proceedings pending the appeal.
On April 1, the court granted the motion for class certification and certified the Damages Class and Wrongful Death Class.
Summary Authors
Becca Rogers (12/25/2020)
Tessa McEvoy (2/20/2021)
Caitlin Kierum (9/7/2021)
Caitlin Kierum (4/2/2022)
For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17047797/parties/maney-v-brown/
Beckerman, Stacie F (Oregon)
Bruggemeier, Franz H. (Oregon)
Chavez, Juan C. (Oregon)
Dahab, Nadia H. (Oregon)
Haile, Benjamin Wright (Oregon)
Meggitt, Alexander (Oregon)
Plesser, Brittney (Oregon)
Sugerman, David F. (Oregon)
Brown, Jermaine (Oregon)
Busse, R Kyle (Oregon)
Beckerman, Stacie F (Oregon)
Bruggemeier, Franz H. (Oregon)
Chavez, Juan C. (Oregon)
Dahab, Nadia H. (Oregon)
Haile, Benjamin Wright (Oregon)
Meggitt, Alexander (Oregon)
Plesser, Brittney (Oregon)
Sugerman, David F. (Oregon)
Brown, Jermaine (Oregon)
Busse, R Kyle (Oregon)
Crippen, Kelsie Gene (Oregon)
Hallman, Andrew D. (Oregon)
Honore, Molly K (Oregon)
Joyce, Anna M. (Oregon)
Luo, Yufeng (Oregon)
Naso, Chad Alan (District of Columbia)
Rosenblum, Ellen F. (Oregon)
Shepherd, Kerry J (Oregon)
White, Tracy Ickes (Oregon)
Armstrong, Shannon L (Oregon)
Asai, Kristin Mariko (Oregon)
Bial, Joseph (District of Columbia)
Finzi, Roberto (New York)
Johnson, Darren W. (New York)
Dewsnup, Daniel (Oregon)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17047797/maney-v-brown/
Last updated March 4, 2023, 3:08 a.m.
State / Territory: Oregon
Case Type(s):
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
Governor of the State of Oregon, State
Oregon Department of Corrections, State
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General:
Sanitation / living conditions
Crowding:
Medical/Mental Health:
COVID-19:
Type of Facility: