COVID-19 Summary: This class action lawsuit was filed on February 20, 2021 by detainees in the Chesapeake Detention Facility in Baltimore, Maryland, who sought extra protections from COVID-19 and, in some cases, release. The parties settled the case in April 2021.
This is a lawsuit challenging the Chesapeake Detention Facility's response to COVID-19 and requesting the release of detainees and prisoners. On February 20, 2021 16, 2020, eight named plaintiffs filed this class action lawsuit and habeas petition in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiffs sued the warden of the facility and the secretary of the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, which operates the facility, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They also petitioned the court for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Represented by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, as well as Bryan Cave, the plaintiffs sought to certify two classes, one of pretrial detainees and one of convicted prisoners, as well as a subclass of medically vulnerable pretrial detainees. They also requested injunctive relief to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in the facility, the release of members of the medically vulnerable pretrial subclass, and attorneys' fees. The plaintiffs claimed that their rights under the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments were violated by the defendants' response to COVID-19.
The Chesapeake Detention Facility, located in Baltimore, is operated by the State of Maryland, but primarily houses people detained in connection with federal criminal cases on behalf of the United States Marshals Service. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants placed them at risk of contracting COVID-19 by moving individuals within units in the facility, inadequate cleaning and masking, and refusing to administer COVID-19 vaccines.
According to the complaint, the plaintiffs' rights under the Fifth, Fourteenth, and Eighth Amendments were violated by their exposure to COVID-19, the plaintiffs' placement in solitary confinement due to an indefinite lockdown, and the plaintiffs' inability to challenge their placement in solitary confinement. Additionally, the plaintiffs requested that the court issue writs of habeas corpus to release medically vulnerable pretrial detainees.
The case was assigned to United States District Judge T.S. Ellis. Two days after filing their complaint, on February 20, 2021, the plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order and the certification of a class. However, on March 15, 2021 Judge Ellis denied the motion for a temporary restraining order as moot, citing the parties' "significant points of agreement." Judge Ellis ordered the parties to submit joint statements outlining their agreements and disagreements.
On March 19, 2021, the parties submitted joint statements of agreement and disagreement. The defendants agreed to numerous safety measures, including testing all facility residents on a weekly basis and on arrival, prioritizing single occupancy cells for medically vulnerable residents, ensuring that residents were able to leave their cells for at least 2 hours a day when possible, cohorting residents to prevent the spread of COVID-19, offering vaccinations to eligible residents, and cleaning the facility. The defendants also agreed to produce documents demonstrating their compliance with the agreement to the plaintiffs and allow them to depose facility staff. The agreement allowed the court to resolve disputes between the the parties. However, the parties did have a number of disagreements about the practical mechanics of many provisions of the agreement, including cohorting, testing, solitary confinement, and transfer to other facilities.
On April 15, 2021, the parties filed a joint status report announcing that they had reached a settlement agreement. The agreement provided that defendants would continue to identify "high risk" residents upon admission to the facility, which includes residents with certain medical conditions and elderly residents. The agreement also provided that defendants would sanitize the cells of all quarantined residents following their removal to isolation and wait at least four hours until moving a new resident into the cell. Defendants agreed to immediately remove all residents who test positive for COVID-19 to an isolated environment with clean and safe living conditions, including provisions of sanitized clothing and mental health counseling. The agreement also provided for weekly COVID-19 testing and contract tracing, with close contacts also being quarantined for 14 days. Defendants also agreed to move all "high risk" residents in quarantine to single cells if possible and enhanced monitoring with quarantined residents with documented mental health conditions. The agreement also provided for a tiered quarantine system divided into four separate categories: quarantine for newly admitted residents, quarantine for close contacts of COVID-positive individuals, medical isolation for COVID-positive individuals, and general population. The defendants also agreed to spread out residents when possible.
Outside of COVID-testing and quarantining, the agreement also provided for guaranteed access to soap and vaccinations, with all residents and staff offered vaccination by May 1, 2021. The defendants also agreed to provide residents and staff up-to-date information on COVID-19 and agreed to provide disinfectants and hand sanitizer to residents on a daily basis, in addition to sanitizing common areas. The defendants also agreed to require proper mask-wearing and to provide at least two reusable masks to each resident upon admission unless they already possess at least two masks. The defendants agreed to produce detailed records for plaintiffs' counsel on a weekly basis regarding COVID-19 cases, testing, and the provision of disinfectants and personal protective equipment. Lastly, the defendants must allow experts designated by plaintiffs' counsel to inspect the facilities at least every 30 days.
On April 20, 2021, the parties filed a consent motion to certify the class for settlement purposes. The Court granted the motion on April 23, 2021, and certified the class for settlement purposes only. On April 28, the parties filed a consent motion to dismiss. The Court granted the motion the same day and approved the settlement agreement. The Court retained jurisdiction for enforcement of the settlement agreement.
The case is now closed.
Jonah Hudson-Erdman - 03/24/2021
Nicholas Gillan - 09/26/2021
compress summary
