COVID-19 Summary: This class action challenged COVID-related conditions at the Prince Georges County jail and sought mitigation and release for pretrial and post-conviction detainees. On May 21, the court granted in part the plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order. Defendants appealed and were denied a stay pending their appeal. On July 7, the plaintiffs submitted an amended complaint, pointing to the lack of mental health services during an indefinite lockdown. On August 27, the parties filed a joint motion to stay proceedings pending settlement talks. The case is ongoing.
On April 21, 2020, pretrial and post-conviction detainees at Prince George’s County Jail, many of whom have pre-existing medical conditions, some of whom were exhibiting COVID-19 symptoms, and all of whom were scared of contracting the virus, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiffs sued the Director of the Prince George’s County Department of Corrections in her official capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The plaintiffs, represented by Civil Rights Corps, sought constitutionally sufficient procedures to protect their health and safety consistent with CDC guidelines and the judgment of correctional health specialists. The plaintiffs claimed that they had been deprived of their rights to reasonably safe living conditions under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and that defendant’s policy of detaining COVID-positive people in the jail who are legally entitled to release violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, a subclass of medically vulnerable pre-trial plaintiffs claimed they were being held in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs also filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction, requested a hearing, and moved to certify a class.
On April 23, District Court Judge Paula Xinis ordered the defendant to file a response to plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO by April 25, and for plaintiffs to reply by April 27. Judge Xinis also directed the parties to submit a joint recommendation for an Independent Inspector by April 27, or two recommendations each, with supporting documents, if they were unable to agree.
The defendant filed their response in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order on April 25 under seal. The plaintiffs filed their reply on April 29. On April 30, each party individually recommended two experts. On May 1, Judge Xinis appointed Carlos Franco-Paredes, MD, MPH as inspector, pursuant to the plaintiffs' recommendation.
On May 21, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion for the temporary restraining order. The court ordered a written plan or protocol to be completed within five days that addressed:
1. The identification, monitoring, treatment, and housing of detainees who are “high risk” (aged 65 or over and/or have an applicable medical condition) for suffering adverse outcomes if infected with COVID-19.
2. The training, education, and supervision of defendant's staff (medical and corrections officers).
3. A protocol for testing and isolation of detainees.
The court also ordered the defendants to submit the following within fourteen days:
1. The total number of tests administered and the total number of confirmed COVID-19 positive detainees.
2. A written plan or protocol regarding the provision of adequate cleaning supplies and face masks, as well as social distancing measures.
On May 26, the defendants appealed to the Fourth Circuit and filed a motion to stay pending appeal. The defendant's motion to stay pending appeal was denied by the district court on June 3, and by the Fourth Circuit on June 10. The plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal on June 4.
As of June 18, 715 individuals at the jail had been tested for COVID-19, with 26 positive results. Those with a positive test result were moved to medical isolation.
Status conferences were held between June 22 and July 2. On July 2, the court denied the plaintiff's preliminary injunction and the temporary restraining order expired.
On July 7, the plaintiffs submitted an amended complaint, stating that in the four months since the initial complaint was filed, indefinite lockdown had continued at the jail, with detainees reporting no more than one or two hours of time out of their cells per day. The plaintiffs alleged a violation of the detainees' Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, pointing to a lack of mental health services while detainees are anxious, depressed, and suicidal due to the indefinite lockdown.
On July 17, the defendant moved to dismiss the case, or alternatively, sought summary judgment. The defendant claimed that all of the released plaintiffs’ claims are moot because they are no longer in their custody, and that therefore the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for relief.
On August 12, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the defendant's appeal as moot, agreeing with the plaintiff that the district court recently extinguished the injunctive relief order and denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
The parties filed a joint motion to stay proceedings on August 27 pending settlement talks.
The case is ongoing.
Claire Shimberg - 05/02/2020
Averyn Lee - 09/21/2020
Chandler Hart-McGonigle - 11/29/2020
compress summary
