COVID-19 Summary: This is a habeas action filed by individuals in the Shelby County Jail who alleged that their underlying medical conditions made them especially vulnerable to COVID-19. They alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act and requested release. The court denied both preliminary relief and motions to dismiss. The parties moved for preliminary approval of class action settlement, which was granted on January 28, 2021. A final approval hearing is scheduled for March 5, 2021.
Two individuals with medical conditions that rendered them especially vulnerable to COVID-19 filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus on May 20, 2020 against the Shelby County Sheriff's Office in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. They sought to represent a class of Shelby County Jail detainees with disabilities or who were medically vulnerable to COVID-19. Represented by lawyers from the ACLU as well as private counsel, they alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.), and the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 701).
Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that conditions in the jail, like housing detainees in close proximity to one another, constituted a failure to provide reasonable safety as well as unlawful punishment of pretrial detainees. They also claimed that defendants were violating the ADA and Rehabilitation Act because they had not made reasonable modifications to their policies to avoid discriminating against detainees with disabilities, who were particularly likely to be affected by COVID. Judge Sheryl H. Lipman was assigned the case.
Simultaneously with the initial petition, plaintiffs sought class certification, a temporary restraining order (TRO) or writ of habeas corpus that would immediately release the named plaintiffs, and a TRO, preliminary injunction, permanent injunction and/or writ of habeas corpus that would create a process by which class members could be released. Plaintiffs filed a motion to expedite consideration of the TRO and preliminary injunction.
The following day, Judge Lipman granted the motion to expedite consideration of the TRO and preliminary injunction, instructing defendants to file a response by May 26. Defendants did so, filing a motion to dismiss, a response in opposition to the motion for class certification, and a response in opposition to the motion for a temporary restraining order. Defendants' responses indicated that they had a thorough process for dealing with COVID-19 and were trying to decrease the population of the jail.
By June 10, Judge Lipman issued an order denying defendant's motion for dismissal. She explained that habeas relief was properly sought because plaintiffs challenged the "fact," not conditions, of confinement. Judge Lipman also denied in part and granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The court granted class certification but narrowed its scope. The certified class consisted of detainees (1) age 65 or older; or with (2) chronic lung disease or moderate to severe asthma; (3) serious heart conditions; (4) immunodeficiencies; (5) severe obesity; (6) diabetes; (7) chronic kidney disease undergoing dialysis; (8) chronic liver disease; or (9) hemoglobin disorders. The court also certified a subclass defined as "All persons currently or in the future held at the Jail in pretrial custody during the COVID19 pandemic who are at increased risk of COVID-19 complications or death because of disabilities as defined in the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act." 2020 WL 3108713.
Two days later, Judge Lipman addressed the motion for a temporary restraining order. She found that the factual record was not developed enough to rule and ordered the parties to agree on an "Independent Inspector" who would visit the jail and report back to the court.
A few days later, plaintiffs submitted an amended complaint which added two more named plaintiffs.
Meanwhile, by June 18 the parties had settled on Michael K. Brady as Independent Inspector. The Inspector filed his report on June 30, 2020. He found that the jail was run by "consummate professionals" but still needed to make several adjustments to ensure the safety of its detainees, including issuing additional masks, improving sanitation, and sequestering new arrivals and high-risk detainees.
On June 30, defendants submitted another motion to dismiss, this time targeting plaintiffs’ amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
The court denied the motion on July 24, 2020. Judge Lipman criticized defendants' "needless filing" of a second motion to dismiss. She noted that defendants' arguments either had been raised and rejected in the first motion to dismiss or should have been raised in the earlier motion. Judge Lipman then rejected the new arguments on the merits because (1) pretrial detainees can bring unconstitutional punishment claims; (2) neither the ADA nor the Rehabilitation Act required proof of discriminatory intent; and (3) habeas relief was available for detainees alleging that their continued detention violated the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. 2020 WL 4668756.
On August 7, the court rejected plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunctive relief and habeas relief. Judge Lipman noted that habeas relief was only available if plaintiffs showed that it was impossible for the jail to detain them in compliance with the Constitution, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act. But she found that "any shortcomings are remediable," while acknowledging continuing concerns about the lack of social distancing, testing, and quarantine at the jail. 2020 WL 4668757.
On September 15, 2020, plaintiffs moved to modify class certification and file a second amended petition for habeas corpus, alleging that defendants had "temporarily made improvements to certain conditions, apparently in preparation for the inspections by court-appointed inspector," but those improvements "lapsed shortly after the inspections occurred," as well as adding additional named plaintiffs, and including a more detailed request for injunctive relief.
After attending mediation, on December 28, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement, and on January 22, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. On January 28, the court preliminarily granted the motion, which are to be approved by the class and subclass. The consent decree states that the defendants must provide the Inspector and plaintiffs with a monthly report that details the population of the jail, number of COVID-19 tests conducts for detainees and staff, number of staff on leave in the past 30 days due to COVID-19 symptoms, number of detainees who died and exhibited symptoms of or tested positive for COVID-19 prior to death, and type of housing for class and subclass members. The decree also mandated unannounced inspections and reports by the Inspector at least every 90 days and unrestricted communications with the jail's Expeditor.
A final approval hearing is scheduled for March 5, 2021.
Jack Hibbard - 07/15/2020
Timothy Leake - 10/28/2020
Zofia Peach - 02/07/2021
compress summary
