COVID-19 Summary: This is a class-action brought by five prisoners with high-risk medical issues held at the federal Central Arizona Florence Correctional Complex against the U.S. Marshals Service and the Bureau of Prisons. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant’s failure to implement basic social distancing and hygiene measures violated their Eighth and Fifth Amendment rights. The TRO and preliminary injunction were denied as it was sought without notice to the defendant on May 11, and again on June 2 for failure to satisfy the deliberate indifference requirement. The plaintiffs sought partial reconsideration on June 16 and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 11. No outcome yet.
On May 8, 2020, five prisoners with high-risk medical conditions held at the Central Arizona Florence Correctional Complex (CAFCC)--a private facility run by CoreCivic--filed this case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against the U.S. Marshals Service and the Bureau of Prisons. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona and private attorneys, the plaintiffs brought this putative class action as both a group habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, an injunctive action, and a declaratory action under 42 U.S.C. § 2201-02. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged failure to implement basic social distancing and hygiene measures, failure to disclose positive cases of COVID-19, and denial of emergency grievance requests from detainees, and therefore that current confinement conditions exposed sentenced prisoners to unreasonable risks of contracting COVID-19 in violation of their constitutional rights under the cruel and unusual punishment clause. The CAFCC housed mostly pre-trial detainees, the plaintiffs also alleged that such denial of medical care subjected individuals not convicted of any crime to unconstitutional punishment against their Fifth Amendment rights. The case was assigned to Judge Diane J. Humetewa, then referred to Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine.
The plaintiffs sought class certification on behalf of everyone held or to be held by CAFCC. Identified in the class were the Pretrial Class, comprised of individuals pending trial or sentencing on federal criminal charges, as well as the Post-Conviction class, comprised of post-conviction prisoners. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief and/or a writ of habeas corpus requiring social distancing and hygiene measures requiring an independent rule 706 expert to review existing health and safety policies at CoreCivic within 48 hours of Court’s order, and if needed, enforce expert-recommended safety procedures. They asked that if appropriate measures could not be achieved without reducing the detained population, the court issue writs of habeas corpus "on the ground that Plaintiffs’ continued detentions violate the Due Process Clause or the Eighth Amendment, and order Plaintiffs’ release." The plaintiffs also sought attorneys' fees.
On May 11, the TRO and preliminary injunction were denied because there had been no notice to the defendants. On May 14, the defendants opposed the TRO and argued that the CAFCC had adequately responded to safeguard the health and well-being of detainees, consistent with CDC guidelines. The next day, the plaintiffs requested an independent expert inspection of the facility in light of the factual differences, and to expedite the ruling.
A hearing was held for the TRO and preliminary injunction on May 22. On June 2, the plaintiff's motion for TRO and preliminary injunction was denied because the plaintiffs had failed to prove deliberate indifference on the part of the defendants.
On June 16, the plaintiffs moved for partial reconsideration of the order, arguing that the legal standard used was meant for relief against state officials while the defendants in this case were federal officials.
On July 6, the plaintiffs notified the court of thirty-nine additional confirmed COVID-19 cases at Corecivic.
The defendants submitted a joint motion to dismiss on August 11. They argued that the plaintiff's claims are now moot because she has been released from custody, and that the conditions of confinement claims under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment should be dismissed because she has received a “formal adjudication of guilt,” and thus her rights are now derived from the Eighth Amendment. They further argued that the court lacks jurisdiction over the plaintiff's petition for writs of habeas corpus and that the Prison Litigation Reform Act bars the court from granting release. Lastly, they argued that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Fifth or Eighth Amendments.
The case is ongoing.
Averyn Lee - 09/10/2020
Chandler Hart-McGonigle - 11/17/2020
compress summary
