Ahlman v. Barnes

• Citation: 445 F.Supp.3d 671
• Decision Date: 26 May 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. SACV 20-835 JGB (SHKx)
• Parties: Melissa AHLMAN, et al. v. Don BARNES, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California

445 F.Supp.3d 671

Melissa AHLMAN, et al.

v.Don BARNES, et al.

Case No. SACV 20-835 JGB (SHKx)

United States District Court, C.D. California.

Filed May 26, 2020

Mitchell A. Kamin, Aaron M. Lewis, Brittany L. Benjamin, Covington and Burling LLP, John Clay Washington, Schonbrun Seplow Harris and Hoffman LLP, Peter J. Eliasberg, ACLU of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, Amia Trigg, Pro Hac Vice, Stacey K. Grigsby, Pro Hac Vice, Covington and Burling LLP, Somil B. Trivedi, Pro Hac Vice, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Washington, DC, Carl Takei, Clara Spera, Pro Hac Vice, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY, Cassandra Stubbs, Cristina Becker Ellis, Pro Hac Vice, Olivia Harper Ensign, Pro Hac Vice, American Civil Liberties Union, Durham, NC, Paul L. Hoffman, University of California Irvine Irvine School of Law Civil Rights Litigation Clinic, Irvine, CA, Zoe A. Brennan-Krohn, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, San Francisco, CA, for Melissa Ahlman, Daniel Kauwe, Michael Seif, Javier Esparza, Pedro Bonilla, Cynthia Campbell, Monique Castillo, Mark Trace, Don Wagner.

Mitchell A. Kamin, Aaron M. Lewis, Brittany L. Benjamin, Covington and Burling LLP, John Clay Washington, Schonbrun Seplow Harris and Hoffman LLP, Peter J. Eliasberg, ACLU of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, Amia Trigg, Pro Hac Vice, Stacey K. Grigsby, Pro Hac Vice, Covington and Burling LLP, Somil B. Trivedi, Pro Hac Vice, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Washington, DC, Carl Takei, Clara Spera, Pro Hac Vice, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY, Cassandra Stubbs, Cristina Becker Ellis, Pro Hac Vice, Olivia Harper Ensign, Pro Hac Vice, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Durham, NC, Paul L. Hoffman, UCIS of Law Civil Rights Litigation Clinic, Irvine, CA, Zoe A. Brennan-Krohn, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, San Francisco, CA, for Cecibel Caridad Ortiz.

D. Kevin Dunn, Kayla Nicole Watson, Laura D. Knapp, Rebecca Sorgen Leeds, Orange County Counsels Office, Santa Ana, CA, for Don Barnes, California Orange County.

Proceedings: Order (1) GRANTING-IN-PART and DENYING-IN-PART Plaintiffs' Application for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 41); and (2) GRANTING Plaintiffs' Motion for Provisional Class Certification (Dkt. No. 42) (IN CHAMBERS)

JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court are (1) Plaintiffs' Application for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction and (2) Plaintiffs' Motion for Provisional Class Certification. ("Application," Dkt. No. 41; "Motion," Dkt. No. 42.) The Court held a hearing on May 19, 2020. After considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion and Application, the Court GRANTS the Motion and GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART the Application.

I. BACKGROUND

On April 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Defendants Don Barnes and Orange County. ("Complaint," Dkt. No. 1.) The Complaint alleges five causes of action: (1) Unconstitutional Conditions of Confinement in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; (2) Unconstitutional Punishment in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; (3) Unconstitutional Conditions of Confinement in Violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; (4) Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Violation of Title II of the ADA; and (5) Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. (Id. )

Plaintiffs filed the Motion and the Application on May 11, 2020. (Motion; Application.) In support of the Application, Plaintiffs filed:

• Exhibit A ("Takei Declaration," Dkt. No. 41-3);

• Exhibit B ("Wagner Declaration," Dkt. No. 41-4);

• Exhibit C ("Parker Declaration," Dkt. No. 41-5);

• Exhibit D ("Goldenson Declaration," Dkt. No. 41-6);

• Exhibit H ("Ramirez Declaration," Dkt. No. 41-10);

• Exhibit I ("Trace Declaration," Dkt. No. 41-11);

• Exhibit J ("Second Wagner Declaration," Dkt. No. 41-12);

• Exhibit K ("Seif Declaration," Dkt. No. 41-13);

• Exhibit L ("Miranda Declaration," Dkt. No. 41-14);

• Exhibit M ("Esparza Declaration," Dkt. No. 41-15);

• Exhibit N ("Godinez Declaration," Dkt. No. 41-16);

• Exhibit O ("Farias Declaration," Dkt. No. 41-17);

• Exhibit P ("Lentz Declaration," Dkt. No. 41-18);

• Exhibit Q ("Ahlman Declaration," Dkt. No. 41-19);

• Exhibit R ("Bonilla Declaration," Dkt. No. 41-20);

• Exhibit S ("Ortiz Declaration," Dkt. No. 41-21);

• Exhibit T ("Hernandez Declaration," Dkt. No. 41-22);

• Exhibit U ("Herrera Declaration," Dkt. No. 41-23);

• Exhibit V ("Trace Declaration," Dkt. No. 41-24);

• Exhibit W ("Cardone Declaration," Dkt. No. 41-25);

• Exhibit X ("Baguiao Declaration," Dkt. No. 41-26);

• Exhibit Y ("Castillo Declaration," Dkt. No. 41-27);

• Exhibit Z ("Kauwe Declaration," Dkt. No. 41-28);

• Exhibit AA ("Saem Declaration," Dkt. No. 41-29);

• Exhibit BB ("Campbell Declaration," Dkt. No. 41-30);

• Exhibit CC–NN ("Grievance Declarations," Dkt. Nos. 41-31–41-42.)

Defendants opposed both the Motion and the Application on May 12, 2020. ("Application Opposition," Dkt. No. 44; "Motion Opposition," Dkt. No. 47.) In support of the Motion Opposition, Defendants filed Evidentiary Objections.¹ ("Motion Objections," Dkt. No 48.) In support of the Application Opposition, Defendants filed:

• Declaration of Martin Ramirez ("M. Ramirez Declaration," Dkt. No. 44-2);

• Declaration of Joseph Balicki ("Balicki Declaration," Dkt. No. 44-10);

• Declaration of C. Hsien Chian ("Chian Declaration," Dkt. No. 44-15);

• Declaration of D. Kevin Dunn ("Dunn Declaration," Dkt. No. 44-22);

• Request for Judicial Notice ("Defendants' RJN," Dkt. No. 45);

• Evidentiary Objections ("Application Objections," Dkt. No. 46).

On May 13, 2020, Plaintiffs replied in support of the Application. ("Application Reply," Dkt. No. 49.) On May 14, 2020, Plaintiffs replied in support of the Motion. ("Motion Reply," Dkt. No. 50.) On May 18, 2020, Plaintiffs submitted several supplemental declarations. The Court held a telephonic hearing on May 19, 2020.

II. FACTS

On December 31, 2019, China reported incidents of a pneumonia

of unknown cause to the World Health Organization. Since then, that infectious disease, which came to be known as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has swept the globe, infecting millions and killing over three hundred thousand people. COVID-19 is particularly dangerous to people who are older or have certain health conditions and disabilities, including diabetes, lung disease, heart disease, and compromised immune systems. (Goldenson Declaration ¶ 27; Parker Declaration ¶ 19.)

COVID-19 has proven to be extremely contagious: it is airborne and survives on surfaces for days.² To limit the spread of this potentially fatal disease, the governor of California—along with leaders around the globe—ordered residents to stay home, avoid non-essential contacts, and to keep six feet away from others wherever possible.

At least 369 inmates at the Orange County Jail ("Jail") have been infected with COVID-19.³ COVID-19 is particularly dangerous in jails and prisons, where inmates are often unable to practice the recommended social distancing, lack access to basic hygienic necessities, and are regularly exposed to correctional officers and staff who move in and out of the Jail. (Goldenson Declaration ¶¶ 17–19.) The Centers for Disease Control ("CDC") has issued special guidance that offer strategies to help prevent COVID-19 infection in prisons and jails ("CDC Guidelines").⁴ The CDC Guidelines recommend "placing cases and individuals with symptoms under medical isolation, quarantining their close contacts, and facilitating necessary medical care, while observing relevant infection control and environmental disinfection protocols and wearing recommended [personal protective equipment]."

A. Jail Facilities & Housing

The Jail houses inmates across four facilities:

• Theo Lacy has a rated capacity of 2,080 occupants.⁵ It is composed of a large number of barrack style dorms, seven module units where people are housed in two-person cells that share common day rooms and shower facilities, and two module units where people are housed in single-person cells that share common day rooms and shower facilities.

• The Men's Central Jail has a rated capacity of 1,219 occupants. It is composed primarily of module units where people are housed in cells that vary in size from four to eight occupants; occupants share toilet and shower facilities. There are also dormitory style units where occupants share common day rooms, shower, and toilet facilities.

• The Women's Central Jail has a rated capacity of 274 occupants. It is composed primarily of dormitory style units which sleep up to 30 occupants in one unit, where occupants share toilet and shower facilities. There is also one unit where people are housed in single cells and share shower facilities.

• The Intake and Release Center has a rated capacity of 407 occupants. It is composed primarily of module units where people are housed in single-person cells that share common day rooms and shower facilities.

(Complaint ¶ 49.) Collectively, the Orange County Jail has a total of 51 medical isolation cells. (Id. )

B. Response to COVID-19

1. Population Reduction Efforts

Since the outbreak, Defendants have reduced the Jail's population. (Balicki Declaration ¶ 6.) However, they have failed to meet the 50% target reduction rate set by Defendants' own Correctional Health Services. (Id. ) Early release is available for vulnerable individuals, but only if those individuals have less than sixty days remaining on their sentence. (M. Ramirez Declaration ¶ 9.) Early release is not available for pre-trial detainees. (Id. ) Additionally, the California Judicial Council reduced bail to $0 for many offenses, allowing some pretrial detainees to await trial on bail. (Id. ¶ 9.)

Despite these population reduction measures, 2,826 individuals remain in the Jail. (Balicki Declaration ¶...