Barnes v. Ahlman

• Decision Date: 05 August 2020
• Docket Number: No. 20A19,20A19
• Parties: Don BARNES, Sheriff, Orange County, California, et al. v. Melissa AHLMAN, et al.
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

140 S.Ct. 2620 (Mem)

Don BARNES, Sheriff, Orange County, California, et al.

v.Melissa AHLMAN, et al.

No. 20A19

Supreme Court of the United States.

August 5, 2020

The application for stay presented to Justice KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is granted, and the district court's May 26, 2020 order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed pending disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.

Justice BREYER and Justice KAGAN would deny the application.

Justice SOTOMAYOR, with whom Justice GINSBURG joins, dissenting from the grant of stay.

Today, this Court steps in to stay a preliminary injunction requiring Sheriff Don Barnes and Orange County (collectively, the Orange County Jail, or Jail) to implement certain safety measures to protect their inmates during the unprecedented COVID–19 pandemic. The injunction's requirements are not remarkable. In fact, the Jail initially claimed that it had already implemented each and every one of them. Yet, apparently disregarding the District Court's detailed factual findings, its application of established law, and the fact that the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has twice denied a stay pending its review of the District Court's order, this Court again intervenes to grant a stay before the Circuit below has heard and decided the case on the merits. See Little v. Reclaim Idaho, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 2616, ––– L.Ed.2d –––– (2020), ante ; at 1, and n. 1 (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting from grant of stay) (noting the frequency with which the Court has begun granting such stays). The Jail's application does not warrant such extraordinary intervention. Indeed, this Court stays the District Court's preliminary injunction even though the Jail recently reported 15 new cases of COVID–19 in a single week (even with the injunction in place), even though the Jail misrepresented under oath to the District Court the measures it was taking to combat the virus’ spread, and even though the Jail's central rationale for a stay (that the injunction goes beyond federal guidelines) ignores the lower courts’ conclusion that the Jail's measures fell "well short" of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Guidelines. 2020 WL 3547960, *4 (C.A.9, June 17, 2020).

I

The Orange County Jail currently houses a population of over 3,000 pretrial detainees and inmates. At the time of the District Court's injunction, the Jail had witnessed an increase of more than 300 confirmed COVID–19 cases in a little over a month. The Jail, moreover, was well aware of the risk that the virus could spread rapidly through its congregate population and that addressing that risk would require certain precautionary measures. The District Court found that several organizations, including a group of Orange County Sheriff deputies, had "repeatedly warned ... of the dangers from COVID–19 in the Jail." 445 F. Supp. 3d 671, 691 (C.D. Cal., May 26, 2020). Indeed, the Jail claims that it sprang into action as soon as the Jail's first documented case of COVID–19 appeared in March of 2020, collaborating closely with local health officials on preventative measures to contain the virus’ spread. When respondents brought suit, seeking an injunction that would require the Jail to implement a number of safety measures to protect inmates against the virus, the Jail told the District Court that such relief was not needed because it had, "at a minimum, already implemented all of the mitigation efforts" requested. Decl. of Joseph Balicki in No. 8: 20–cv–00835, Doc. 44–10, ¶ 2 (CD Cal., May 12, 2020) (Balicki Decl.); see also id. , ¶ 9 ("There is not a single ‘mitigation effort’ outlined in Plaintiffs’ Complaint that has not already been implemented in the jails"). The Jail claimed that it had already achieved proper social distancing, provided inmates enough soap for frequent handwashing, and isolated and tested all symptomatic individuals.

Dozens of inmate declarations told a different story. Although the Jail had been warned that "social distancing is the cornerstone of reducing transmission of COVID–19," Exh. B to Balicki Decl., Doc. 44–12, inmates described being transported back and forth to the jail in crammed buses, socializing in dayrooms with no space to distance physically, lining up next to each other to wait for the phone, sleeping in bunk beds two to three feet apart, and even being ordered to stand closer than six feet apart when inmates tried to socially distance. Moreover, although the Jail told its inmates that they could "best protect" themselves by washing their hands with "soap and water throughout the day," Exh. C to Balicki Decl., Doc. 44–13, numerous inmates reported receiving just one small, hotel-sized bar of soap per week. And after symptomatic inmates were removed from their units, other inmates were ordered to dispose of their belongings without gloves or other protective equipment. Finally, despite the Jail's stated policy to test and isolate individuals who reported or exhibited symptoms consistent with COVID–19, multiple symptomatic detainees described being denied tests, and others recounted sharing common spaces with infected or symptomatic inmates.

II

Based on detailed factual findings, which the Ninth Circuit credited, the District Court concluded that the risk of harm in the Jail was "undeniably high." 445 F. Supp. 3d, at 688. The court further determined that while the Jail may have formally adopted a policy to mitigate that risk, its actual compliance was "piecemeal and inadequate." Ibid. On this evidence, the District Court held that respondents were likely to succeed in showing that the Jail was deliberately indifferent to the health and safety of its inmates and that it had violated federal disability rights law. In response, the court imposed a preliminary injunction that closely followed the CDC Guidelines for correctional and detention facilities.

This Court now stays that injunction, even though this case presents none of the typical indicia warranting certiorari. See Maryland v. King , 567 U.S. 1301, 1301, 133 S.Ct. 1, 183 L.Ed.2d 667 (2012) (ROBERTS, C. J., in chambers) (an applicant for a stay "must demonstrate (1) ‘a reasonable probability’ that this Court will grant certiorari, (2) ‘a fair prospect’ that the Court will then reverse the decision below, and (3) ‘a likelihood that irreparable harm [will] result from the denial of a stay’ " (quoting Conkright v. Frommert , 556 U.S. 1401, 1402, 129 S.Ct. 1861, 173 L.Ed.2d 865 (2009) (GINSBURG, J., in chambers))). The District Court and Ninth Circuit applied well-established law to the particular facts of this case to conclude that the Jail knew of and disregarded an "excessive risk to inmate health or safety." Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). That conclusion is not clearly wrong. The Jail argues that, because it voluntarily released 53 percent of its population, it necessarily could not have been deliberately indifferent to the needs of its inmates. But the release of even a large number of inmates does not absolve the Jail of its responsibility for the health and safety of the roughly 3,000 individuals left behind. And while the Jail claims that it largely implemented the CDC Guidelines and radically increased hygiene and cleaning within its walls, the District Court, whose factual findings are owed deference, found the reality to be very different.¹ The District Court concluded that by demonstrating the Jail's failure to implement basic safety measures of which it...