Case: Martinez-Brooks v. Easter

3:20-cv-00569 | U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut

Filed Date: April 27, 2020

Closed Date: Oct. 31, 2021

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

COVID-19 Summary: This was a class action brought in 2020 by prisoners held at the Federal Correctional Center (FCI) in Danbury, Connecticut, seeking immediate release or home confinement of medically vulnerable individuals and implementation of safety measures to lower the risk of COVID-19. It settled in July 2020 and the settlement expired after fifteen months. On April 27, 2020, four individuals held at the Federal Correctional Center (FCI) in Danbury, Connecticut filed this putative class …

COVID-19 Summary: This was a class action brought in 2020 by prisoners held at the Federal Correctional Center (FCI) in Danbury, Connecticut, seeking immediate release or home confinement of medically vulnerable individuals and implementation of safety measures to lower the risk of COVID-19. It settled in July 2020 and the settlement expired after fifteen months.


On April 27, 2020, four individuals held at the Federal Correctional Center (FCI) in Danbury, Connecticut filed this putative class action at the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Represented by the Legal Clinic of the Quinnipiac University School of Law, Yale Law School's Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization, and private attorneys, they brought the lawsuit against FCI Danbury and the Federal Bureau of Prisons as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, as an injunctive action, and as a declaratory action under 28 U.S.C. §2201-02. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to take appropriate measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19, resulting in confinement conditions that violated their Eighth Amendment rights.

The plaintiffs proposed a class of all detainees held or to be held in the custody of FCI Danbury. They also proposed a subclass of detainees aged 50 and over, or those medically vulnerable. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, and/or a writ of habeas mandating the release or immediate home confinement of medically vulnerable detainees, and the implementation of safety measures against the risk of disease and death posed by COVID-19. Pending the habeas actions, the petitioners sought an "enlargement" of custody for detainees to home confinement as a provisional remedy. The case was assigned to Judge Micheal P Shea.

The four plaintiffs were at higher risk of serious harm due to underlying medical conditions such as lupus, asthma, and hypertension. On April 30, 2020, the petitioners requested an emergency temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to implement measures to reduce the density of the population and maximize social distancing. They also sought preliminary certification of the proposed class for that order. On May 5, the respondents filed for a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust available administrative remedies.

On May 12, 2020, the court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss. 2020 WL 2405350. It found that neither the PLRA (Prison Litigation Reform Act) or res judicata precluded the relief sought, and excused the plaintiffs from the exhaustion of administrative remedies, finding that they had shown that they would likely suffer irreparable harm if they were required to exhaust the administrative remedy process before seeking relief in court.

In the same opinion, the court also granted in part and denied in part the motion for a temporary restraining order. The court ordered a filing of a list of “medically vulnerable inmates at Danbury FCI,” defined as individuals in custody aged over 65 and/or who have underlying medical conditions specifically identified by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control as a higher risk for COVID-19, and ordered the implementation of home confinement process for those individuals within three days. The court also ordered a timely process of evaluating compassionate release based on COVID-19 within seven days. Finally, the court ordered an individualized explanation for each denial of home confinement and a status report to be submitted to the court within thirteen days.

During a telephonic status conference held on May 26, 2020, the plaintiffs indicated that they knew of multiple individuals who qualified as medically vulnerable but who were not included on the list of medically vulnerable inmates that the defendants listed for home confinement, as required by the TRO. The defendants indicated a willingness to conduct a further search to identify additional medically vulnerable inmates. Therefore, the court ordered an extension of the deadline for compliance with the temporary restraining order by fourteen days, through June 9.

Another status conference was held on May 28, 2020, and the parties agreed to confer on a possible agreement on matters including home confinement review by a medical clinician, usage of a medical record code that allows automatic qualification for the medically vulnerable subclass, and a means of identifying inmates who should be included in the subclass but are not captured by the code. The court ordered the parties to submit a notice that would describe any agreements on these matters and indicate whether court intervention is needed by June 2.

The court also found that while more than two weeks had passed since the May 12 temporary restraining order, there has not been a single release to home confinement. Therefore, it ordered defendants to either release to home confinement all those listed as eligible for home confinement or provide a safety reason against home confinement by June 4 to ensure full compliance with the order. Additionally, the court discussed with both parties its need to better understand the home confinement review process under the temporary restraining order and ordered submission of any agreement about a process to generate a random sample of the records by June 4, 2020. Finally, the court agreed with the plaintiffs that mistakes may have caused the denial of home confinement for certain individuals and ordered re-review for home confinement by June 9.

On May 29, 2020, the court addressed the plaintiff’s request to take similar action with respect to those inmates already determined to be appropriate for placement in a Residential Reentry Center (RRC). 2020 WL 2813072. Recognizing that the schedule for such placement is unclear and that social distancing may still be inadequate at a communal half-way house, the court granted the plaintiff’s request in part. The defendants were ordered to release to home confinement those who were approved for community placement at an RRC, as long as they did not have a violent offense of conviction, a sexually-related offense of conviction, or a high-risk assessment score, or provide a safety reason against home confinement by June 9.

On June 8, 2020, the plaintiffs moved for sanctions against the defendant, seeking an order that would preclude the defendants from disputing that FCI Danbury’s system for responding to sick call requests was inadequate and untimely.

Late in June, the named plaintiffs filed a voluntary dismissal and on June 15 the court dismissed their claims. On June 16, the plaintiffs filed an amended habeas petition with new named plaintiffs. The case was then referred to Judge Thomas O. Farrish for settlement purposes. Two plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims on July 29.

On July 27, 2020, the parties reported that they had come to a settlement agreement and that they planned to file a joint motion to certify the settlement class by August 3. Under the agreement, once identified as medically vulnerable, the defendant would consider the individual's suitability for home confinement. A medical clinician either employed or appointed by the BOP would verify that all medical conditions are identified for the home confinement review, and the review process would follow the standards previously outlined in the temporary restraining order, including speedy consideration for release to home confinement and substantial weight provided to each individual’s COVID risk factors. The agreement was tentatively scheduled to terminate on October 31, 2021. The plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class for settlement purposes on August 3, which was granted on August 11. 2020 WL 4605224.

On August 25, 2020, an individual filed a motion to intervene, which was denied by the court three days later because the individual was not incarcerated at Danbury FCI, was not a member of the provisionally certified class, had no interest in a settlement between the Warden at FCI Danbury and a class of inmates at that facility, and a habeas relief was not available to those housed at BOP facilities not located within the District of Connecticut.

Between the end of August and beginning of September, 2020, multiple putative class members filed objections to the settlement.

On September 11, 2020, the plaintiffs submitted a motion for final approval of the class action settlement. After a fairness hearing, the court approved the class action settlement agreement on September 18.

In light of the Court's approval of the settlement and its findings at the hearing, it dismissed the remaining pending motions, including the motion for preliminary injunction and the motion for sanctions. The court also denied multiple emergency motions to intervene, amend the complaint, or for bail because the filers either were or would become members of the class and if not, disposing of the action in their absences would not impair or impede their ability to protect their interests.

On October 12, 2020, pursuant to the settlement agreement, the parties jointly filed a motion to dismiss the case. The court retained jurisdiction over the settlement to the extent necessary to enforce its terms.

On December 6, 2020, the plaintiffs moved to enforce the settlement agreement and require the defendants to immediately release medically vulnerable class members who were approved for home confinement. The court granted the motion on December 11, finding that the defendants breached the agreement. 2020 WL 7297016. The court stated that the defendants were barred from delaying the transfer of any class member beyond fourteen days without communicating with the plaintiffs' counsel within 5 days of the fourteen-day period.

On December 17, 2020, the plaintiffs moved again to enforce the settlement agreement; the court granted this motion in part and denied it in part on January 19, 2021. 2021 WL 165015. The court ordered that the parties meet and identify specific class members whose cases warranted re-review and ordered that the defendants re-review the identified inmates for home confinement within fourteen days.

On April 19, 2021, the court denied the plaintiffs' request that BOP be ordered to re-review 5 class members for home confinement. The court requested that the defendant file another status report within four days.

On October 31, 2021, the settlement agreement expired, per the terms of the agreement. When the government subsequently moved to terminate the settlement agreement, the court denied the motion on the grounds that the agreement had already expired, ending the court’s jurisdiction. (For the same reason, the court later denied an inmate's motion for a status conference.

This case is now closed.

Summary Authors

Averyn Lee (9/24/2020)

Chandler Hart-McGonigle (11/30/2020)

Zofia Peach (4/2/2021)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17104227/parties/martinez-brooks-v-easter/


Judge(s)

Farrish, Thomas O. (Connecticut)

Shea, Michael Peter (Connecticut)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bialek, Tessa (Connecticut)

Doherty, Fiona (Connecticut)

Golub, David S (Connecticut)

Harrington, Alexandra (Connecticut)

Levine, Jonathan M. (Connecticut)

Orihuela, Marisol (Connecticut)

Russell, Sarah French (Connecticut)

Shroff, Zal Kotval (Kansas)

Judge(s)

Farrish, Thomas O. (Connecticut)

Shea, Michael Peter (Connecticut)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bialek, Tessa (Connecticut)

Doherty, Fiona (Connecticut)

Golub, David S (Connecticut)

Harrington, Alexandra (Connecticut)

Levine, Jonathan M. (Connecticut)

Orihuela, Marisol (Connecticut)

Russell, Sarah French (Connecticut)

Shroff, Zal Kotval (Kansas)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Durham, John H. (Connecticut)

Howard, Darrin (New Jersey)

Hughes, John B. (Connecticut)

McConaghy, Michelle Lynn (Connecticut)

Nelson, David Christopher (Connecticut)

Orticelli, Jillian R. (Connecticut)

Putnam, Nathaniel Michael (Connecticut)

Other Attorney(s)

Near, Allison (Connecticut)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Meyer, Jaimie (Connecticut)

Resnik, Judith (Connecticut)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

3:20-cv-00569

Docket [PACER]

April 1, 2021

April 1, 2021

Docket
1 & 1-1 to 1-14

3:20-cv-00569

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C §2241 and Request for Emergency Order of Enlargement

April 27, 2020

April 27, 2020

Complaint
14, 15 (& 15-1 to 15-8)

3:20-cv-00569

Petitioners' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum of Law in Support

April 30, 2020

April 30, 2020

Pleading / Motion / Brief
24, 24-1, 24-2

3:20-cv-00569

Respondents' Motion to Dismiss Petitioners' Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

May 5, 2020

May 5, 2020

Pleading / Motion / Brief
26 (& 26-1 to 26-5), 27 (& 27-1 to 27-6)

3:20-cv-00569

Petitioners' Supplemental Memorandum and Second Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

May 7, 2020

May 7, 2020

Pleading / Motion / Brief
30

3:20-cv-00569

Ruling On Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion to Dismiss

May 12, 2020

May 12, 2020

Order/Opinion
37

3:20-cv-00569

Protective Order

May 15, 2020

May 15, 2020

Order/Opinion
68

3:20-cv-00569

Conference Memorandum and Order

May 28, 2020

May 28, 2020

Order/Opinion
70

3:20-cv-00569

Order

May 29, 2020

May 29, 2020

Order/Opinion
83 (& 83-1 to 83-4)

3:20-cv-00569

Petitioners' Motion for Sanctions and Supporting Memorandum of Law

June 8, 2020

June 8, 2020

Pleading / Motion / Brief

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17104227/martinez-brooks-v-easter/

Last updated Aug. 28, 2022, 3:19 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ACTDC-5825186.), filed by Dianthe Martinez-Brooks, Kenneth Cassidy, Jackie madore, Rejeanne collier. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Jaimie Meyer, M.D., # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Professor Judith Resnik, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of Dianthe Martinez-Brooks, # 4 Exhibit Declaration of Kenneth Cassidy, # 5 Exhibit Declaration of Christina Korbe, # 6 Exhibit Declaration of Marius (Marie) Mason, # 7 Exhibit Declaration of Kimberly Hoisington, # 8 Exhibit Declaration of Rafael Almonte, # 9 Exhibit Declaration of Tamika Sommerville, # 10 Exhibit Declaration of Theresa Forman, # 11 Exhibit Declaration of Antrum Coston, # 12 Exhibit Declaration of Shannon Benson, # 13 Exhibit Declaration of Richard Johnson, # 14 Exhibit Declaration of Ronald Harper)(Levine, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/27/2020)

1 Exhibit Declaration of Jaimie Meyer, M.D.

View on RECAP

2 Exhibit Declaration of Professor Judith Resnik

View on RECAP

3 Exhibit Declaration of Dianthe Martinez-Brooks

View on RECAP

4 Exhibit Declaration of Kenneth Cassidy

View on RECAP

5 Exhibit Declaration of Christina Korbe

View on RECAP

6 Exhibit Declaration of Marius (Marie) Mason

View on RECAP

7 Exhibit Declaration of Kimberly Hoisington

View on RECAP

8 Exhibit Declaration of Rafael Almonte

View on RECAP

9 Exhibit Declaration of Tamika Sommerville

View on RECAP

10 Exhibit Declaration of Theresa Forman

View on RECAP

11 Exhibit Declaration of Antrum Coston

View on RECAP

12 Exhibit Declaration of Shannon Benson

View on RECAP

13 Exhibit Declaration of Richard Johnson

View on RECAP

14 Exhibit Declaration of Ronald Harper

View on RECAP

April 27, 2020

April 27, 2020

Clearinghouse

Add and Terminate Judges

April 27, 2020

April 27, 2020

PACER
2

NOTICE of Related Case by Kenneth Cassidy, Dianthe Martinez-Brooks, Rejeanne collier, Jackie madore (Levine, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/27/2020)

April 27, 2020

April 27, 2020

RECAP
3

MOTION for Order to Show Cause by Kenneth Cassidy, Dianthe Martinez-Brooks, Rejeanne collier, Jackie madore. (Levine, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/27/2020)

April 27, 2020

April 27, 2020

PACER
4

NOTICE of Appearance by David S. Golub on behalf of Kenneth Cassidy, Dianthe Martinez-Brooks, Rejeanne collier, Jackie madore (Golub, David) (Entered: 04/27/2020)

April 27, 2020

April 27, 2020

PACER
5

NOTICE of Appearance by Marisol Orihuela on behalf of Kenneth Cassidy, Dianthe Martinez-Brooks, Rejeanne collier, Jackie madore (Orihuela, Marisol) (Entered: 04/27/2020)

April 27, 2020

April 27, 2020

PACER
6

NOTICE of Appearance by Sarah French Russell on behalf of Kenneth Cassidy, Dianthe Martinez-Brooks, Rejeanne collier, Jackie madore (Russell, Sarah) (Entered: 04/27/2020)

April 27, 2020

April 27, 2020

PACER

Judge Michael P. Shea added. (Nuzzi, Tiffany)

April 27, 2020

April 27, 2020

PACER
9

STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 04/27/2020. (Peterson, M) (Entered: 04/28/2020)

April 27, 2020

April 27, 2020

RECAP
10

ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 04/27/2020. (Peterson, M) (Entered: 04/28/2020)

April 27, 2020

April 27, 2020

PACER
7

NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan M. Levine on behalf of Kenneth Cassidy, Rejeanne Collier, Jackie Madore, Dianthe Martinez-Brooks (Levine, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/28/2020)

April 28, 2020

April 28, 2020

PACER

Add and Terminate Judges

April 28, 2020

April 28, 2020

PACER
8

NOTICE of Appearance by Tessa Baxter Bialek on behalf of Kenneth Cassidy, Rejeanne Collier, Jackie Madore, Dianthe Martinez-Brooks (Bialek, Tessa) (Entered: 04/28/2020)

April 28, 2020

April 28, 2020

PACER
11

ORDER: The Court GRANTS in part the Motion for Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 3) as follows: The Clerk shall serve the Petition and a copy of this order on the Respondents, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rules 1(b) and 4; and the Plaintiffs shall serve a copy of this order and a copy of all of their filings in this action on the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Connecticut by email and shall file proof of confirmation of receipt of such email service on the docket. Within 6 days of the Plaintiffs' filing of proof of such service, the Respondents shall file a response to this order showing cause why the writ should not be granted, the Court finding good cause to allow time beyond the three days specified in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2243, due to the size and complexity of the plaintiffs' filings. The Court will promptly schedule an initial telephonic status conference with the parties once the Respondents have filed their response; the purpose of the conference, which the Court will endeavor to hold within 36 hours of the filing of the response, will be to discuss the nature and timing of the hearing the Court should hold to adjudicate the petition and any other issues raised in the parties' papers, including but not limited to whether the Court should require Respondents promptly to identify members of the Subclass defined in the Petition, as requested in the Motion for Order to Show Cause. To the extent the Notice of Related Case should be construed as a request to transfer this case to Judge Bolden, it is DENIED. The undersigned, too, has been assigned habeas petitions arising under Section 2241 and brought by inmates at FCI Danbury (see, e.g., Serfass v. Warden, 20cv513), and other judges in this district apart from the undersigned and Judge Bolden likely have been as well. Further, the Foreman case raises several issues not raised in this case, and this case, a putative class action, raises many issues not raised in that case. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 4/29/2020. (Karpman, Michael) (Entered: 04/29/2020)

April 29, 2020

April 29, 2020

PACER

Order on Motion to Show Cause

April 29, 2020

April 29, 2020

PACER
12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Michael Carvajal, Kenneth Cassidy, Rejeanne Collier, D. Easter, Jackie Madore, Dianthe Martinez-Brooks re 11 Order on Motion for Order to Show Cause,,,,,,,, (Golub, David) (Entered: 04/29/2020)

April 29, 2020

April 29, 2020

PACER
13

ORDER: In light of the Certification of Service filed by Plaintiffs (ECF No. 12), the response by Respondents to the Court's order to show cause is due on May 5, 2020.Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 4/30/2020. (Karpman, Michael) (Entered: 04/30/2020)

April 30, 2020

April 30, 2020

PACER

Order

April 30, 2020

April 30, 2020

PACER

Set Deadlines/Hearings

April 30, 2020

April 30, 2020

PACER

Set Deadlines: Show Cause Response due by 5/5/2020 (Johnson, D.)

April 30, 2020

April 30, 2020

PACER
14

Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Responses due by 5/21/2020, ) by Kenneth Cassidy, Rejeanne Collier, Jackie Madore, Dianthe Martinez-Brooks. (Golub, David) (Entered: 04/30/2020)

April 30, 2020

April 30, 2020

RECAP
15

Memorandum in Support re 14 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Kenneth Cassidy, Rejeanne Collier, Jackie Madore, Dianthe Martinez-Brooks. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit O -- Declaration of Miranda McLaurin, # 2 Exhibit P -- Second Declaration of Kimberly Hoisington, # 3 Exhibit Q -- Declaration of Shannon Battle, # 4 Exhibit R -- Declaration of Kimberly Kitts, # 5 Exhibit S -- Second Declaration of Christina Korbe, # 6 Exhibit T -- Second Declaration of Dianthe Martinez-Brooks, # 7 Exhibit U -- Danbury Inmate Bulletin (4/16/20), # 8 Exhibit V -- Danbury Inmate Bulletin (4/21/20))(Golub, David) (Entered: 04/30/2020)

1 Exhibit O -- Declaration of Miranda McLaurin

View on RECAP

2 Exhibit P -- Second Declaration of Kimberly Hoisington

View on RECAP

3 Exhibit Q -- Declaration of Shannon Battle

View on RECAP

4 Exhibit R -- Declaration of Kimberly Kitts

View on RECAP

5 Exhibit S -- Second Declaration of Christina Korbe

View on RECAP

6 Exhibit T -- Second Declaration of Dianthe Martinez-Brooks

View on RECAP

7 Exhibit U -- Danbury Inmate Bulletin (4/16/20)

View on PACER

8 Exhibit V -- Danbury Inmate Bulletin (4/21/20)

View on RECAP

April 30, 2020

April 30, 2020

RECAP
16

NOTICE of Appearance by Jillian R. Orticelli on behalf of Michael Carvajal, D. Easter (Orticelli, Jillian) (Entered: 05/01/2020)

May 1, 2020

May 1, 2020

PACER

Order

May 1, 2020

May 1, 2020

PACER

Set Deadlines/Hearings

May 1, 2020

May 1, 2020

PACER
17

NOTICE of Appearance by John B. Hughes on behalf of Michael Carvajal, D. Easter (Hughes, John) (Entered: 05/01/2020)

May 1, 2020

May 1, 2020

PACER
18

ORDER. The Government shall respond to the 14 motion for temporary restraining order by May 5, 2020. If it wishes to do so, the Government may combine this response with its response to the order to show cause. The Court will hold a telephonic status conference on May 6, 2020 at 1:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 5/1/2020. (Karpman, Michael) (Entered: 05/01/2020)

May 1, 2020

May 1, 2020

PACER
19

NOTICE of Appearance by Nathaniel Putnam on behalf of Michael Carvajal, D. Easter (Putnam, Nathaniel) (Entered: 05/01/2020)

May 1, 2020

May 1, 2020

PACER

Set Deadlines/Hearings:( Show Cause Response due by 5/5/2020, Telephonic Status Conference set for 5/6/2020 01:00 PM before Judge Michael P. Shea), Set Deadlines as to 14 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction .(Responses due by 5/5/2020, ) (Johnson, D.)

May 1, 2020

May 1, 2020

PACER
20

ORDER: Nothing in this order should be taken as any indication about how the Court will rule on the petition or motion for temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction. The Government must file its responses to the order to show cause and the motion for temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction by 6pm on May 5, 2020. (The time was inadvertently omitted from the Court's previous order.) The parties shall be prepared to argue the motion for temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction at the telephonic hearing scheduled for 1pm on May 6. To facilitate preparation for that argument, and to facilitate any relief the Court might order after the argument and/or after further proceedings, the parties shall be prepared to discuss the following legal and factual issues. To the extent these questions can only be answered by the Government, Government counsel shall make diligent efforts before the call to obtain answers: 1. Do the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3626 apply to this case, i.e., is this a "civil action with respect to prison conditions"? Relatedly, is the relief petitioners are seeking a "prisoner release order"? See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3626(g)(2),(4).2. Although the Second Circuit has "conclude[d] that the class action device should not be imported into collateral actions, as least in its full vigor as contemplated by Rule 23," it has recognized "the power of the judiciary... to fashion for habeas actions appropriate modes of procedure, by analogy to existing rules or otherwise in conformity with judicial usage." U.S. ex rel. Sero v. Preiser, 506 F.2d 1115, 1125 (2d Cir. 1974). In Preiser, the court allowed "a multi-party proceeding similar to the class action" on behalf of young adults serving misdemeanor sentences, because "many of those serving reformatory sentences are likely to be illiterate or poorly educated," "most would not have the benefit of counsel to prepare habeas corpus petitions," and "considerable expenditure of judicial time and energy in hearing and deciding numerous individual petitions presenting the identical issue is thereby avoided." Id. at 1126; see also id. at 1127 ("And although we believe that more stringent standards may be appropriate in deciding whether a habeas action presents substantial and common questions of law or fact, it is apparent that the complaint of the representative parties in this suit states a clear and unitary allegation on behalf of all young adult misdemeanants."). To what extent does this habeas petition satisfy these criteria for "a multi-party proceeding similar to the class action," given that the requested relief includes "bail," "enlargement," or "release" and that such relief ordinarily requires the assessment of the individual circumstances of the applicant, cf. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3142(g)(3) (directing the court to consider, among other things, "the history and characteristics of the person" when making release determinations)?3. What is the current population and capacity of each of the three facilities at FCI Danbury?4. What is the availability of extra space that might be outfitted for living or quarantine space at each of the three facilities? 5. For each of the three facilities at Danbury FCI, how many written requests based on the circumstances presented by COVID-19 have been made for temporary release, home confinement, or compassionate release (under 18 U.S.C. Secs. 3622, 3624, 3582(c)(1)(A), the CARES Act, or any other authority)? And for each facility, (1) how many such requests have been granted either by the BOP or by the Court, and (2) how many inmates have actually been released - whether it be to home confinement, a half-way house, or otherwise? 6. Which of the named petitioners have sought the relief in paragraph 5, what types of relief have been sought, and what is the status of any requests/motions? (The Court will ask this question first of Petitioners' counsel.)7. How long would it take the Warden to respond to a court order requiring the production of a list of all inmates at each of the three facilities falling within the subclass defined by the petitioners or an alternative subclass based on the CDC's guidance as to vulnerable persons, see https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-at-higher-risk.html? This is not a comprehensive list of the questions the Court will ask. Counsel should be prepared on all issues raised in their papers. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 5/3/2020. (Karpman, Michael) (Entered: 05/03/2020)

May 3, 2020

May 3, 2020

PACER

Order

May 3, 2020

May 3, 2020

PACER
21

NOTICE of Appearance by Michelle Lynn McConaghy on behalf of Michael Carvajal, D. Easter (McConaghy, Michelle) (Entered: 05/04/2020)

May 4, 2020

May 4, 2020

RECAP

Set Motion and Rcmd Ruling Deadlines/Hearings

May 4, 2020

May 4, 2020

PACER

Set Deadlines/Hearings

May 4, 2020

May 4, 2020

PACER
22

Notice of Additional Authority re 14 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Michael Carvajal, Kenneth Cassidy, Rejeanne Collier, D. Easter, Jackie Madore, Dianthe Martinez-Brooks. (Golub, David) (Entered: 05/04/2020)

May 4, 2020

May 4, 2020

PACER
23

NOTICE of Appearance by David Christopher Nelson on behalf of Michael Carvajal, D. Easter (Nelson, David) (Entered: 05/05/2020)

May 5, 2020

May 5, 2020

PACER
24

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Michael Carvajal, D. Easter.Responses due by 5/26/2020 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibits A through F)(McConaghy, Michelle) (Entered: 05/05/2020)

1 Memorandum in Support

View on RECAP

2 Exhibits A through F

View on RECAP

May 5, 2020

May 5, 2020

RECAP
25

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael P. Shea: Telephonic Status Conference held on 5/6/2020. Total Time: 1 hours and 39 minutes(Court Reporter J. Monette.) (Johnson, D.) (Entered: 05/07/2020)

May 6, 2020

May 6, 2020

PACER
26

Supplemental Memorandum in Support re 14 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Kenneth Cassidy, Rejeanne Collier, Jackie Madore, Dianthe Martinez-Brooks. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit B -- CDC Guidance, # 3 Exhibit C -- ICD Codes, # 4 Exhibit D -- Status report in Wilson v. Williams, # 5 Exhibit E -- Motion to Enforce in Wilson v. Williams)(Golub, David) (Entered: 05/07/2020)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on RECAP

2 Exhibit B -- CDC Guidance

View on PACER

3 Exhibit C -- ICD Codes

View on PACER

4 Exhibit D -- Status report in Wilson v. Williams

View on RECAP

5 Exhibit E -- Motion to Enforce in Wilson v. Williams

View on PACER

May 7, 2020

May 7, 2020

Clearinghouse

Status Conference

May 7, 2020

May 7, 2020

PACER
27

Memorandum in Support re 14 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Second Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by Kenneth Cassidy, Rejeanne Collier, Jackie Madore, Dianthe Martinez-Brooks. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -- Second Declaration of Kenneth Cassidy, # 2 Exhibit B -- Government Filing in Compassionate Release Case, # 3 Exhibit C -- Declaration of Edward Clinton Jones, # 4 Exhibit D -- Declaration of Ivan Joseph Soto, # 5 Exhibit E -- Declaration of Mark A. Youngs, # 6 Exhibit F -- Declaration of Rogers Perkins)(Russell, Sarah) (Entered: 05/11/2020)

1 Exhibit A -- Second Declaration of Kenneth Cassidy

View on RECAP

2 Exhibit B -- Government Filing in Compassionate Release Case

View on RECAP

3 Exhibit C -- Declaration of Edward Clinton Jones

View on RECAP

4 Exhibit D -- Declaration of Ivan Joseph Soto

View on RECAP

5 Exhibit E -- Declaration of Mark A. Youngs

View on RECAP

6 Exhibit F -- Declaration of Rogers Perkins

View on RECAP

May 11, 2020

May 11, 2020

RECAP
28

TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Type of Hearing: Telephonic Status Conference on Motions held on 5-6-2020 before Judge Michael P. Shea. Court Reporter: Julie Monette. IMPORTANT NOTICE - REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: To remove personal identifier information from the transcript, a party must electronically file a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction with the Clerk's Office within seven (7) calendar days of this date. If no such Notice is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and the transcript will be made available through PACER without redaction 90 days from today's date. The transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. The policy governing the redaction of personal information is located on the court website at www.ctd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 6/1/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/11/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/9/2020. (Monette, Julie) (Entered: 05/11/2020)

May 11, 2020

May 11, 2020

PACER
29

Notice of Additional Authority re 24 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Michael Carvajal, D. Easter. (Attachments: # 1 Grinis Decision, # 2 Alvarez Decision)(Nelson, David) (Entered: 05/11/2020)

1 Grinis Decision

View on PACER

2 Alvarez Decision

View on PACER

May 11, 2020

May 11, 2020

PACER
30

ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached ruling and order, the Court grants in part and denies in part the 14 motion for temporary restraining order, denies the 24 motion to dismiss, and sets the motion for preliminary injunction down for a hearing on June 11, 2020 at 9am. The parties should pay close attention to the temporary restraining order, and the deadlines therein, set forth at the end of the attached ruling and order. In addition, as indicated in the attached order regarding preliminary injunction hearing (also appearing at the end of the attached ruling), the Court schedules a telephonic status conference for May 14, 2020 at 3:00 p.m.Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 5/12/2020. (Karpman, Michael) (Entered: 05/12/2020)

May 12, 2020

May 12, 2020

Clearinghouse

Set Deadlines/Hearings: Telephonic Status Conference set for 5/14/2020 03:00 PM before Judge Michael P. Shea (Johnson, D.)

May 12, 2020

May 12, 2020

PACER

Set Deadlines as to 14 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . Motion Hearing set for 6/11/2020 09:00 AM in Courtroom Two, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Michael P. Shea (Johnson, D.)

May 12, 2020

May 12, 2020

PACER

Set Deadlines/Hearings

May 13, 2020

May 13, 2020

PACER

Set Motion and Rcmd Ruling Deadlines/Hearings

May 13, 2020

May 13, 2020

PACER
31

ORDER: The Court notes that it is has not yet decided the format of the June 11 preliminary injunction hearing and, in particular, whether it will be in-person, partially remote, or entirely remote. The Court will issue a notice regarding the format of the hearing after receiving input from the parties and in due course. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 5/14/20.(Johnson, D.) (Entered: 05/14/2020)

May 14, 2020

May 14, 2020

PACER

Notice of Hearing on Motion

May 14, 2020

May 14, 2020

PACER

Order

May 14, 2020

May 14, 2020

PACER
32

ORDER: During the 3:00 p.m. call today, counsel shall be prepared to discuss the issue of security under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 5/14/2020. (Karpman, Michael) (Entered: 05/14/2020)

May 14, 2020

May 14, 2020

PACER
33

NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH PRETRIAL ORDER by Michael Carvajal, Kenneth Cassidy, Rejeanne Collier, D. Easter, Jackie Madore, Dianthe Martinez-Brooks re 30 Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction,,,, Order on Motion for TRO,,, Discovery Plan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Golub, David) (Entered: 05/14/2020)

1 Exhibit A

View on RECAP

May 14, 2020

May 14, 2020

RECAP
34

ORDER. For the reasons discussed during today's call, the Court hereby amends the Temporary Restraining Order entered on May 12, 2020, see ECF No. 30 at 68-73, as follows:(1) Paragraph 1f is amended to read as follows: "Respondent shall provide the list to Petitioners' counsel, and the list shall be marked 'Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only' and be treated accordingly under the Protective Order entered in this case, ECF No. 9, except that Petitioners' counsel may also disclose information on the list pertaining to a particular inmate to (a) that inmate and/or (b) that inmate's representative (either the inmate's family member or his/her attorney). To be clear, Petitioners counsel may not disclose information pertaining to one inmate to another inmate or another inmate's representative." (2) The Court nunc pro tunc amends the Temporary Restraining Order and Ruling (ECF No. 30) to indicate that it has considered whether to require the Petitioners to give security under Rule 65(c) and has concluded that, because they are indigent and because of the nature of the case, the amount of security is set at $0.With regard to the discussion on the call concerning the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision in Byrne v. Avery Center for Obstetrics and Gynecology, P.C., 327 Conn. 540 (2018), the Court does not find that that decision, or the Connecticut statute or HIPAA regulations cited therein, is an obstacle to amending the Temporary Restraining Order further to require that the list of inmates in the Medically Vulnerable Subclass include ICD codes. The Byrne decision suggests, and the statute and HIPAA regulations make clear, that a disclosure made in response to a court order, as opposed to a subpoena issued by a litigant, would not expose the person subject to the court order to liability. Nonetheless, as Respondents asked to file a proposed order on this point, the Court will await making further amendments to the temporary restraining order until the Respondents file the proposed language, provided they do so promptly.As discussed, by close of business on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, the parties are directed to submit a joint proposal regarding the format and logistics of the preliminary injunction hearing, including whether any part of the proceeding should be conducted in the courtroom. The Court will issue a further order regarding the hearing after it receives this input from the parties. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 5/14/2020. (Karpman, Michael) (Entered: 05/14/2020)

May 14, 2020

May 14, 2020

PACER
35

NOTICE by Michael Carvajal, D. Easter of Proposed Protective Order (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Protective Order)(McConaghy, Michelle) (Entered: 05/14/2020)

1 Proposed Protective Order

View on PACER

May 14, 2020

May 14, 2020

PACER
36

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael P. Shea: Telephonic Status Conference held on 5/14/2020. 53 minutes(Court Reporter J. Monette.) (Johnson, D.) (Entered: 05/15/2020)

May 14, 2020

May 14, 2020

PACER
37

ORDER. The Court hereby amends the Temporary Restraining Order entered on May 12, 2020, ECF No. 30 at 69-73, as follows: Paragraph 1b is amended to read: "The list referred to in paragraph 1 shall include the identify of the inmate, the inmate's sentencing court, the case number of the inmate's underlying criminal conviction, and the ICD code(s) that caused the inmate to be included on the list."The Court enters the attached protective order.Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 5/15/2020. (Karpman, Michael) (Entered: 05/15/2020)

May 15, 2020

May 15, 2020

Clearinghouse

Status Conference

May 15, 2020

May 15, 2020

PACER

Order

May 15, 2020

May 15, 2020

PACER

Order Re: Chambers Practices

May 15, 2020

May 15, 2020

PACER
38

ORDER. Any discovery disputes that arise between the parties are hereby REFERRED to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas O. Farrish. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 5/15/2020. (Karpman, Michael) (Entered: 05/15/2020)

May 15, 2020

May 15, 2020

PACER
39

ORDER RE: Discovery Disputes. Any discovery disputes that cannot be resolved through good-faith negotiation between counsel shall be raised with Judge Farrish in accordance with Judge Shea's "Instructions for Discovery Disputes," except that (i) the initial phone call referenced in Paragraph 1 of the instructions shall be to Judge Farrish's chambers at 860-240-3606, rather than to Judge Shea's chambers; and (ii) unless otherwise ordered by Judge Farrish during the initial phone call, the letter referenced in Paragraph 2 of the instructions shall be submitted within 24 hours of the call, in light of the compressed schedule applicable to this case. A copy of Judge Shea's "Instructions for Discovery Disputes" may be found on his web page under the "Judges" header on the District of Connecticut website, www.ctd.uscourts.gov. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Farrish on 05/15/2020. (Farrish, Thomas) (Entered: 05/15/2020)

May 15, 2020

May 15, 2020

PACER
40

NOTICE by Michael Carvajal, D. Easter of filing the inmate list (Nelson, David) (Entered: 05/15/2020)

May 15, 2020

May 15, 2020

PACER
41

Sealed Document: Inmate List by Michael Carvajal, D. Easter re 40 Notice (Other) . (Nelson, David) (Entered: 05/15/2020)

May 15, 2020

May 15, 2020

PACER
42

NOTICE by Michael Carvajal, D. Easter re 40 Notice (Other) Declarations Regarding the Inmate List (Attachments: # 1 Declaration 1, # 2 Declaration 2)(Nelson, David) (Entered: 05/15/2020)

1 Declaration 1

View on RECAP

2 Declaration 2

View on RECAP

May 15, 2020

May 15, 2020

RECAP
43

NOTICE by Michael Carvajal, D. Easter of List of Factors (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 List of Factors)(Nelson, David) (Entered: 05/15/2020)

1 Declaration

View on RECAP

2 List of Factors

View on PACER

May 15, 2020

May 15, 2020

PACER
44

NOTICE by Michael Carvajal, D. Easter Written Statement regarding PATTERN and Mental Health (Attachments: # 1 Written Statement)(Nelson, David) (Entered: 05/15/2020)

1 Written Statement

View on PACER

May 15, 2020

May 15, 2020

PACER
45

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Thomas O. Farrish for discovery disputes. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 5/15/20.(Johnson, D.) (Entered: 05/18/2020)

May 15, 2020

May 15, 2020

PACER

Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge

May 18, 2020

May 18, 2020

PACER
46

Joint NOTICE by Michael Carvajal, Kenneth Cassidy, Rejeanne Collier, D. Easter, Jackie Madore, Dianthe Martinez-Brooks re 34 Order,,,,,,,,,, re Format of Preliminary Inj Hearing (Golub, David) (Entered: 05/19/2020)

May 19, 2020

May 19, 2020

PACER
47

NOTICE by Michael Carvajal, D. Easter of Compliance with Sections 3(b) and 3(c) of the TRO (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Program Statement)(McConaghy, Michelle) (Entered: 05/19/2020)

1 Declaration

View on RECAP

2 Program Statement

View on PACER

May 19, 2020

May 19, 2020

PACER
48

NOTICE by Michael Carvajal, D. Easter of Declaration regarding Compassionate Release / Reduction in Sentence (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit B)(Nelson, David) (Entered: 05/19/2020)

1 Declaration

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B

View on PACER

May 19, 2020

May 19, 2020

PACER
49

Sealed Document: Exhibit A by Michael Carvajal, D. Easter re 48 Notice (Other) . (Nelson, David) (Entered: 05/19/2020)

May 19, 2020

May 19, 2020

PACER
50

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal of Carvajal by All Plaintiffs (Golub, David) (Entered: 05/19/2020)

May 19, 2020

May 19, 2020

RECAP
51

NOTICE by D. Easter of Compliance with Section 1(d)(b) of the TRO (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Putnam, Nathaniel) (Entered: 05/19/2020)

1 Declaration

View on RECAP

May 19, 2020

May 19, 2020

PACER
52

ORDER. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of all claims against Respondent Michael Carvajal. Accordingly, all claims against Respondent Michael Carvajal are hereby DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 5/20/20. (Karpman, Michael) (Entered: 05/20/2020)

May 20, 2020

May 20, 2020

PACER
53

ORDER: The Court has reviewed the parties' joint report regarding the format and logistics for the preliminary injunction hearing. (ECF No. 46.) In accordance with the parties' proposal, the hearing will be held over Zoom and the Court will issue a Zoom link on the docket shortly before the hearing. The parties note that it may be necessary to have inmates testify via telephone. While this is acceptable to the Court if there really are no other alternatives, the Court strongly prefers that all witnesses testify via Zoom and notes that it has conducted Zoom hearings with inmates at other facilities. The Court is prepared to issue any orders reasonably necessary to facilitate Zoom participation by inmates. The parties shall file a further status report with regard to these issues on May 29, 2020. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 5/20/2020. (Karpman, Michael) (Entered: 05/20/2020)

May 20, 2020

May 20, 2020

PACER

Set Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 5/29/2020 (Johnson, D.)

May 20, 2020

May 20, 2020

PACER

Order

May 20, 2020

May 20, 2020

PACER

Set Deadlines/Hearings

May 20, 2020

May 20, 2020

PACER
54

NOTICE: Petitioners' counsel have inquired of the Court, copying Respondents' counsel, as to the scope of the permission under amended Paragraph 1f to "disclose information on the list pertaining to a particular inmate to (a) that inmate and/or (b) that inmates representative (either the inmates family member or his/her attorney)." ECF No. 34. For clarity, the Court notes that this directive does not limit the ability of an inmate or the inmate's lawyer to disclose that inmate's inclusion on the list, or any information on the list pertaining to that inmate, in order to advocate in the inmate's interests, including, without limitation, by disclosing the information to judges who may be presiding over requests made by the inmate under Section 3582(c)(1)(A). Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 5/21/2020. (Karpman, Michael) (Entered: 05/21/2020)

May 21, 2020

May 21, 2020

PACER

Notice

May 21, 2020

May 21, 2020

PACER
55

NOTICE by Kenneth Cassidy, Rejeanne Collier, Jackie Madore, Dianthe Martinez-Brooks Petitioners' Notice in Advance of Court's May 26, 2020 Status Conference (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Petitioners' Record Search Request, # 2 Exhibit Petitioners' Requested Codes and Medications for Search)(Russell, Sarah) (Entered: 05/22/2020)

1 Exhibit Petitioners' Record Search Request

View on PACER

2 Exhibit Petitioners' Requested Codes and Medications for Search

View on PACER

May 22, 2020

May 22, 2020

PACER
56

ORDER. The Court has reviewed the Petitioners 55 notice and wishes to make clear that the document(s) referred to in Paragraph 5 of the TRO containing individualized explanations of any denials of home confinement must also be provided to Petitioners' counsel. In stating that the document had to be provided "to the Court (under seal)," the Court did not mean to suggest that the document did not have to be provided to Petitioner's counsel. Any such suggestion was inadvertent, because if the document is not provided to the Petitioners, the parties will be unable to have a meaningful conversation during the May 26 conference regarding whether Respondents have complied with the Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 5/22/2020. (Karpman, Michael) (Entered: 05/22/2020)

May 22, 2020

May 22, 2020

PACER

Order

May 22, 2020

May 22, 2020

PACER
57

NOTICE by D. Easter regarding Completion of Home Confinement Review Process for "Medically Vulnerable" List (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Nelson, David) (Entered: 05/25/2020)

1 Declaration

View on PACER

May 25, 2020

May 25, 2020

PACER
58

Sealed Document: Exhibit A by D. Easter re 57 Notice (Other) . (Nelson, David) (Entered: 05/25/2020)

May 25, 2020

May 25, 2020

RECAP
59

Sealed Document: Review Worksheets by D. Easter re 57 Notice (Other) . (Nelson, David) (Entered: 05/25/2020)

May 25, 2020

May 25, 2020

PACER
60

NOTICE by Kenneth Cassidy, Rejeanne Collier, Jackie Madore, Dianthe Martinez-Brooks OF RULE 34 INSPECTION OF FCI DANBURY (Orihuela, Marisol) (Entered: 05/26/2020)

May 26, 2020

May 26, 2020

RECAP
61

ORDER. The Court held a telephonic status conference today to discuss issues related to the Respondent's compliance with the Court's TRO, ECF No. 30. During the call, the Petitioners indicated that they knew of multiple individuals who qualified as medically vulnerable under Paragraph 1 of the TRO (which references CDC criteria), but who were not included on the list of medically vulnerable inmates that Respondent used to select inmates for prioritized review for home confinement, as required by the TRO. Petitioners indicate that they believe that additional searches are necessary to identify additional medically vulnerable inmates they believe to be present at FCI Danbury who are not on the current list. The Respondent indicated a willingness to conduct a further search to identify additional medically vulnerable inmates, although the Respondent took the position that the Petitioners' proposed search parameters were overbroad. Given that additional searches are likely necessary to identify all of the medically vulnerable inmates at FCI Danbury for prioritized home confinement review (as required by Paragraphs 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the TRO), that further additional time will be necessary to review those inmates for home confinement, and that further inquiry is necessary to determine whether the Respondent has otherwise fully complied with the TRO, the Court finds that there is good cause under Rule 65(b)(2) to extend the temporary restraining order by 14 days, through June 9, 2020.As discussed during today's call, the parties shall meet and confer regarding the most effective and efficient process for identifying as many of the remaining medically vulnerable inmates at FCI Danbury as possible. The parties should also discuss whether and how a person with medical expertise should be involved in the home confinement review process, in light of the requirement under the TRO that the Respondent assign substantial weight to an inmate's COVID-19 risk factors in the review process. The parties shall file a status report regarding their discussions by close of business on May 27. The Court will hold a telephonic status conference on May 28, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. to discuss these issues.As further discussed, the Respondent shall also file a notice by close of business on May 27, under seal, indicating the release status of each of the 26 inmates that have been approved for home confinement. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 5/26/2020. (Karpman, Michael) (Entered: 05/26/2020)

May 26, 2020

May 26, 2020

PACER
62

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael P. Shea: Telephonic Status Conference held on 5/26/2020. Total Time: 1 hours and 47 minutes(Court Reporter J. Monette.) (Johnson, D.) (Entered: 05/27/2020)

May 26, 2020

May 26, 2020

PACER

Set Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Status Report due by 5/27/2020; Telephonic Status Conference set for 5/28/2020 11:00 AM before Judge Michael P. Shea (Johnson, D.)

May 26, 2020

May 26, 2020

PACER

Order

May 26, 2020

May 26, 2020

PACER
63

ORDER. The Respondent has filed ECF No. 58 under seal, but the Court did not order this document to be filed under seal, nor has the Warden filed a motion to seal. Unless the Warden files a motion to seal within 7 days setting forth the justification for sealing the document, the Court will order ECF No. 58 unsealed. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 5/27/2020. (Karpman, Michael) (Entered: 05/27/2020)

May 27, 2020

May 27, 2020

PACER
64

Joint STATUS REPORT by Kenneth Cassidy, Rejeanne Collier, D. Easter, Jackie Madore, Dianthe Martinez-Brooks. (Levine, Jonathan) (Entered: 05/27/2020)

May 27, 2020

May 27, 2020

RECAP
65

NOTICE by D. Easter (Orticelli, Jillian) (Entered: 05/27/2020)

May 27, 2020

May 27, 2020

PACER
66

Sealed Document: Release status of inmates deemed eligible for home confinement by D. Easter re 65 Notice (Other) . (Orticelli, Jillian) (Entered: 05/27/2020)

May 27, 2020

May 27, 2020

PACER
67

NOTICE by Kenneth Cassidy, Rejeanne Collier, Jackie Madore, Dianthe Martinez-Brooks Petitioners' Position in Advance of May 28, 2020 Status Conference Regarding Home Confinement Review Process (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Russell, Sarah) (Entered: 05/27/2020)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

May 27, 2020

May 27, 2020

PACER

Status Conference

May 27, 2020

May 27, 2020

PACER

Order

May 27, 2020

May 27, 2020

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Connecticut

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Special Collection(s):

COVID-19 (novel coronavirus)

Post-WalMart decisions on class certification

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: April 27, 2020

Closing Date: Oct. 31, 2021

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

All members of the Medically Vulnerable Class, consisting of any person incarcerated at FCI Danbury from July 27, 2020 to October 31, 2021 who either: (a) is a List One Inmate or List Two Inmate, or (b) possesses one or more underlying medical conditions which, according to current CDC guidance, either (i) places that inmate at increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19 ; or (ii) might place that inmate at an increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization (Yale)

Legal Services/Legal Aid

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Warden of Federal Correctional Institution at Danbury, Federal

Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal

Defendant Type(s):

Corrections

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens

Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)

Constitutional Clause(s):

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Special Case Type(s):

Habeas

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 2020 - 2021

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief granted

Issues

General:

Bathing and hygiene

Conditions of confinement

Sanitation / living conditions

Totality of conditions

Crowding:

Crowding / caseload

Medical/Mental Health:

Medical care, general

Mental health care, general

COVID-19:

CDC Guidance ordered implemented

Mitigation Denied

Mitigation Granted

Mitigation Requested

Population-Medically vulnerable

Population reduction/cap

Release Granted

Release granted-group

Release-process created/modified

Release Requested

Transfer-ordered or process created/modified

Type of Facility:

Government-run