Banks v. Booth
| Decision Date | 18 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 20-849 (CKK) |
| Parties | Edward BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs v. Quincy L. BOOTH, et al., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Jacob Kreilkamp, Pro Hac Vice, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Arthur B. Spitzer, Scott Michelman, Michael Krevans Perloff, American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia, Brendan B. Gants, Jeremy Kreisberg, Jonathan S. Meltzer, Rachel G. Miller-Ziegler, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Jenna Marie Cobb, Steven D. Marcus, Jonathan W. Anderson, Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Andrew J. Saindon, Micah Ian Bluming, Pamela A. Disney, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
This case is brought by various inmates of the District of Columbia's Department of Corrections ("DOC") detained in the Central Detention Facility ("CDF") and the Correctional Treatment Facility ("CTF"). Plaintiffs bring claims against Quincy Booth, in his official capacity as Director of the DOC, and Lennard Johnson, in his official capacity as Warden of the DOC. Plaintiffs’ claims relating to the conditions of their confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic are brought pursuant to the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs’ claims relating to release from confinement are brought pursuant to writs of habeas corpus.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ [70] Amended Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, which is opposed. Upon consideration of the pleadings,1 the relevant legal authorities, and the record for purposes of this motion, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ [70] Motion. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and that the balance of the equities and the public interest favors injunctive relief. However, as will be further explained below, the Court concludes that some of the relief requested by Plaintiffs is not appropriate at this time.
The Court previously recounted the background of this case in its Memorandum Opinion granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO"). ECF No. 51. However, for ease of reading, the Court shall recount that background here.
Prior to proceeding through the procedural background of this case, the Court notes that the hearings held in this matter have been conducted either telephonically or through video conferencing. Due to the restrictions of the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia postponed all civil hearings to occur before July 15, 2020. In Re: Further Extension of Postponed Court Proceedings in Standing Order 20-9 and Limiting Court Operations in Exigent Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic, Standing Order No. 20-29 (BAH), May 26, 2020. As such, in compliance with the standing order and recommended precautionary measures, the Court has conducted these emergency matters virtually.
On March 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this matter. That same day, Plaintiffs also filed a Motion to Certify a Class of all persons confined or to be confined in DOC facilities, a Motion for a TRO, and a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. ECF Nos. 3, 5, 6.
On March 31, 2020, the Court ordered that a teleconference be held to discuss scheduling for Plaintiffs’ pending Motion for a TRO. March 31, 2020 Minute Order. During the hearing, the Court ordered Defendants to provide specific, relevant information to the Court over the following two days. For example, the Court ordered Defendants to provide a list of the names of the approximately 94 inmates who had been sentenced to misdemeanors and who could be released; the numbers of people who had been tested for COVID-19 and a break-down of the identities of those individuals (such as inmates, visitors, etc.) and the results of those tests; the date on which Defendants began testing people coming into the jails; the number and a breakdown of the results of COVID-19 tests which had been done on those who were incarcerated prior to the date on which Defendants began testing all incoming inmates; all relevant written procedures and practices concerning COVID-19; and Defendants’ process which was in place or would be put in place to allow legal counsel to communicate with their clients electronically or by other means. April 1, 2020 Minute Order. The Court also ordered Defendants to provide Declarations about the processes and procedures in place and the conditions of DOC facilities in light of COVID-19. Id. The Court further set a briefing schedule for Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO and stayed Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Complaint, and Motion for Class Certification pending the resolution of the TRO. Id. A court reporter was present at the hearing, and a transcript of the hearing is on the docket. ECF No. 18.
On April 1, 2020 and April 2, 2020, Defendants filed Responses to the Court's Order. ECF Nos. 19, 20, 21.
On April 2, 2020, the Fraternal Order of Police for the District of Columbia Department of Corrections Labor Committee filed for leave to submit an amicus curiae brief in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO. ECF No. 23. After considering Defendants’ opposition, the Court granted the motion, finding that the amicus brief could assist the Court in its analysis of certain, relevant issues. April 3, 2020 Minute Order.
On April 3, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an Emergency Motion to Expedite the Hearing on the Application for a TRO. ECF No. 24. In consideration of Plaintiffs’ arguments, the Court scheduled a videoconference on the merits of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO for April 7, 2020. April 3, 2020 Minute Order.
Prior to the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO, Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO on April 3, 2020, and Plaintiffs filed their Reply in support of their Motion on April 4, 2020. ECF Nos. 25, 26.
On April 7, 2020, the court conducted a two-hour video conference on the merits of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO. A court reporter was present, and a transcript of the hearing is on the docket. ECF No. 37. Also on that day, the Court conducted a second teleconference with the parties. The parties determined that they would confer and propose names for an amicus of the Court to inspect the conditions of CTF and CDF. April 8, 2020 Minute Order.
On April 8, 2020, the Court again conducted a teleconference with the parties to ascertain their proposed amicus of the Court. The parties ultimately agreed to the appointment of Grace Lopes and Mark Jordan as amici of the Court to provide information on the actual conditions of CTF and CDF and to make findings on Defendants’ responses to COVID-19. A court reporter was present, and a transcript of the hearing is on the docket. ECF No. 33. On April 9, 2020, the Court issued a consent order appointing Ms. Lopes and Mr. Jordan as amici. ECF No. 34.
The amici reviewed records from the DOC facilities and conducted unannounced and unescorted site visits on multiple shifts at both CDF and CTF on April 10, 11, and 12, 2020. Defendants cooperated with amici in providing them with necessary materials and in providing them access to the facilities, staff, and inmates during their visits.
On April 15, 2020, the Court held a telephone conference at which the amici presented their oral preliminary findings and both parties as well as the Court asked questions. A court reporter was present, and a transcript of the hearing is on the docket. ECF No. 45.
On April 18, 2020, the amici submitted their final written report. Attachment 1.2 The Court incorporates that report into this Memorandum Opinion. The Court further notes that on April 17, 2020, following the amici's oral presentation of their preliminary findings, Mr. Booth provided a memorandum to all DOC employees and contractors entitled "Reminders and Updated COVID-19 Policies and Procedures." Exhibits to Report Submitted by Amicus Curiae, Attachment 2, Ex. 11. In this memorandum, Mr. Booth addressed some of the deficiencies identified by the amici.
On April 19, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO. Specifically, the Court ordered that Defendants follow many of the recommendations set out in the amici report relating to the conditions of confinement at DOC facilities. However, the Court did not order the release of any inmates. ECF Nos. 50, 51.
On April 22, 2020, the Court held a teleconference during which the parties agreed to propose a schedule for briefing Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction. April 23, 2020 Minute Order. A court reporter was present, and a transcript of the hearing is on the docket. ECF No. 57.
On April 28, 2020, the Court entered a consent Order setting out a schedule for briefing on Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, structuring the role of the amici, and extending the TRO Order pending the Court's resolution of Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. ECF No. 62.
On May 1, 2020, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order joining the United States as a necessary party limited to issues involving the release of inmates under Plaintiffs’ claims for writs of habeas corpus. ECF Nos. 63, 64.
On May 11, 2020, the Court held a telephone conference at which the amici presented their oral preliminary findings in response to particular questions and both parties as well as the Court asked additional questions. A court reporter was present, and a transcript of the hearing is on the docket. ECF No. 69, Attachment 3. And, on May 22, 2020, the amici submitted their final written report. Attachment 4. The Court incorporates that report into this Memorandum...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maney v. Brown
...the balance of equities and public interest weighs in favor of vaccinating AICs as soon as possible.17 See, e.g., Banks v. Booth , 468 F. Supp. 3d 101, 124 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (finding that an injunction that "lessens the risk that Plaintiffs will contract COVID-19 is in the public interest be......
- Verastegui v. Wolf
-
O.M.G. v. Wolf
...to COVID-19, but concluding that "the immediate release of inmates ... is inappropriate at this time"); Banks v. Booth, No. 20-849, 468 F.Supp.3d 101, 125–26, (D.D.C. June 18, 2020) (same).As an analytical matter, it is not entirely clear where in the preliminary-injunction framework this q......
-
Amos v. Cain
...Parchman was a dead end and because Parchman officials took steps to thwart inmate access to the ARP. See generally Banks v. Booth, 468 F. Supp. 3d 101, 121 (D.D.C. 2020) (in preliminary injunction analysis, finding plaintiffs "evidence of exhaustion sufficient to show a likelihood of succe......
-
PANDEMIC RULES: COVID-19 AND THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT'S EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT.
...policies on key COVID-19 related issues," but declining to require immediate testing of staff and people in jail); Banks v. Booth, 468 F. Supp. 3d 101, 125-26 (D.D.C. 2020) (ordering the defendant to implement a medical care system, comply with social distancing regulations, and continue th......