Cameron v. Bouchard

• Citation: 462 F.Supp.3d 746
• Decision Date: 21 May 2020
• Docket Number: Civil Case No. 20-10949
• Parties: Jamaal CAMERON, Richard Briggs, Raj Lee, Michael Cameron, and Matthew Saunders, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Michael BOUCHARD, Curtis D. Childs, and Oakland County, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

462 F.Supp.3d 746

Jamaal CAMERON, Richard Briggs, Raj Lee, Michael Cameron, and Matthew Saunders, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

v.Michael BOUCHARD, Curtis D. Childs, and Oakland County, Defendants.

Civil Case No. 20-10949

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

Signed May 21, 2020

Alexandria Twinem, Civil Rights Corps, Krithika Santhanam, Thomas Bradford Harvey, Advancement Project, Washington, DC, Allison L. Kriger, La Rene & Kriger, P.L.C., Daniel S. Korobkin, Philip Edwin Mayor, American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, Detroit, MI, Kevin M. Carlson, Cary S. McGehee, Pitt McGehee Palmer & Rivers PC, Royal Oak, MI, for Plaintiffs.

Peter L. Menna, Oakland County Corporation Counsel, Pontiac, MI, Robert C. Clark, Steven M. Potter, Thomas M. DeAgostino, Potter DeAgostino O'Dea & Patterson, Auburn Hills, MI, for Defendant Michigan Oakland County.

Andrew A. Nickelhoff, Nickelhoff & Widick, PLLC, Detroit, MI, for Defendant Amici Curiae.

OPINION

LINDA V. PARKER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

We are in the midst of a global pandemic arising from the novel coronavirus ("COVID-19"). No one could deny that it has produced unparalleled and exceptional circumstances affecting every aspect of life as we have known it. This case addresses whether persons with a limited ability to protect themselves from the threat of this serious and deadly virus due to their incarceration in Michigan's Oakland County Jail ("Jail") are being adequately protected. If they are not, this Court must provide some remedy, as "[p]risoners retain the essence of human dignity inherent in all persons" and failing to protect them from serious harm "is incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in civilized society." Brown v. Plata , 563 U.S. 493, 510-11, 131 S.Ct. 1910, 179 L.Ed.2d 969 (2011).

Plaintiffs-Petitioners (hereafter "Plaintiffs"), five Jail inmates, filed this putative class action lawsuit, claiming that Defendants are acting with deliberate indifference in response to the serious risk that COVID-19 poses to incarcerated individuals. And because COVID-19 presents a specifically dire threat to "medically-vulnerable individuals"—a term that has become basic to our lexicon in the last several months, Plaintiffs seek the temporary release of inmates within this category. The matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 5), Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Class (ECF No. 6), and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 30). The Court held a hearing with respect to the motions via videoconference on May 4, 6 and 7, 2020.

I. Procedural Background

On April 17, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a combined putative class action complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a representative habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all current and future Jail detainees ("Jail Class"), as well as the following subclasses:

• The First Subclass ("Pre-trial Subclass") is defined as "[a]ll current and future persons detained at the Oakland County Jail during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic who have not yet been convicted of the offense for which they are currently held in the Jail."

• The Second Subclass ("Post-conviction Subclass") is defined as "[a]ll current and future persons detained at the Oakland County Jail during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic who have been sentenced to serve time in the Jail or who are otherwise in the Jail as the result of an offense for which they have already been convicted."

• The Third Subclass ("Medically-Vulnerable Subclass") is defined as "[a]ll members of the Jail class who are also over the age of fifty or who, regardless of age, experience an underlying medical condition that places them at particular risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19 ...."

(Id. ) On April 17, Plaintiffs also filed a Motion to Certify Class. (ECF No. 6.) They further filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") and Preliminary Injunction in which they asked the Court to order (i) the release of members of the Medically-Vulnerable Subclass pending briefing and argument and (ii) the undertaking of certain measures to improve hygiene and safety at the Jail. (ECF No. 5.)

On April 17, the Court issued a TRO directing Defendants to take certain measures to improve hygiene and safety at the Jail. (ECF No. 12.) The Court also ordered Defendants to promptly produce to Plaintiffs and the Court lists of information relevant to inmates within the proposed Medically-Vulnerable Subclass. (Id. ) However, the Court concluded that it was without sufficient information to then rule on Plaintiffs’ request to release all members of the Medically-Vulnerable Subclass. (Id. ) The Court subsequently entered an amended opinion and order, which contained no substantive changes. (ECF No. 21.)

Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied in all respects except the Court modified its order as to the lists relevant to inmates within the proposed Medically-Vulnerable Subclass. (ECF No. 29.) The Court instead required Defendants to provide the lists to the Court and/or Plaintiffs’ counsel "only once the Court determines that it has the power to release inmates in this litigation or is convinced that there is some other reason why the lists should be produced." (Id. at Pg ID 806.)

Following a telephonic conference with counsel for the parties on April 20, at which time Defendants indicated that they intended to file a motion to dismiss, the Court set a briefing schedule for Defendants to file their motion and respond to Plaintiffs’ TRO and preliminary injunction motion. (ECF No. 22.) The parties subsequently stipulated to and the Court entered an order allowing for an inspection of the Jail by Dr. Carlos Franco-Paredes on April 23. (ECF No. 27.) On April 23, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss and response to Plaintiffs’ TRO and preliminary injunction motion. (ECF No. 30.) Plaintiffs responded to the Motion to Dismiss on April 27. (ECF No. 33.)

The Court conducted a hearing via videoconference on the parties’ pending motions on May 4, 6, and 7. As consented to during a telephonic status conference prior to the hearing, each side presented two live witnesses but otherwise relied on documentary evidence, affidavits, and declarations to present their evidence. Subsequent to the hearing, both parties supplemented the record with affidavits. (ECF Nos. 64-1, 83-1.) Defendants filed a response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Class on May 12 (ECF No. 83), and Plaintiffs filed a reply brief on May 18 (ECF No. 90).¹ Both parties filed trial briefs on May 13. (ECF Nos. 85, 86.)

II. Factual Findings

A. The Jail and the Parties

1. The Parties

The Oakland County Sheriff's Office ("Sheriff's Office") oversees and administers the Jail and is responsible for the custody and care of individuals detained or incarcerated at the Jail. Michael Bouchard is the Sheriff of Oakland County. Captain Curtis Childs is the Commander of Corrective Services for the Sheriff's Office. Plaintiffs are suing Sheriff Bouchard and Captain Childs in their official capacities only.

Plaintiffs are five Jail inmates. Plaintiff Jamaal Cameron has been incarcerated at the Jail since March 11, 2020 and is expected to be released on July 5, 2020. (J. Cameron Decl., ECF No. 5-3 at Pg ID 370.) Mr. Cameron's original release date was in August 2020, but he filed a pro se motion in state court seeking early release on a tether due to his health conditions and was granted a 25-percent reduction of his sentence. (5/4/20 Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 56 at Pg ID 1488-89.) The judge did not inform Mr. Cameron that he had the right to appeal the denial of his request for release on a tether. (Id. at Pg ID 1508.) Mr. Cameron eventually hired a lawyer to file a second motion to be released, which was filed around April 1, 2020, heard on April 21, and remains pending before the state court. (Id. at Pg ID 1489-91, 1507.) Mr. Cameron states that he suffers from hypertension

, bronchitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), gastritis, and sleep apnea.² (Id. at Pg ID 1461.)

Plaintiff Raj Lee has been at the Jail since November 18, 2019 and is serving a nine-month sentence. (Lee Decl., ECF No. 5-5 at Pg ID 383.)

Plaintiff Michael Cameron, a 42-year old convicted inmate, suffers from cardiac disease, hypertension

, and obesity. (M. Cameron Decl., ECF No. 5-6 at Pg ID 389.)

Plaintiff Richard Briggs is a pretrial detainee who has been unable to afford his $34,000 bond. (Briggs Decl., ECF No. 5-4 at Pg ID 377.) Mr. Briggs has been incarcerated at the Jail since approximately November 9, 2019, except for a period of time around March 2020 when he was in the Wayne County Jail. (Id. )

Plaintiff Matthew Saunders is a pretrial detainee who has been incarcerated since October 3, 2019. (Saunders Decl., ECF No. 5-8 at Pg ID 399.) His criminal trial was initially scheduled for March 18, 2020, but is now adjourned until June 15. (Id. )

2. The Jail

The Jail has the capacity to house 1,664 inmates. (5/7/20 Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 61 at Pg ID 1835.) Pretrial detainees and convicted individuals are housed together. (Id. ) The Jail is comprised of three main housing units: the Main Jail, the Annex, and the East Annex. (ECF No. 67.) The Main Jail and the Annex are in the same building, while the East Annex is in a separate building across a parking lot. (5/6/20 Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 65 at Pg ID 2020.) Captain Childs oversees the Main Jail and Annex, while another captain oversees the East Annex. (Id. at Pg ID 2125.)

The Annex has eight pods, each of which largely contains two-person cells. (Defs.’ Hr'g Ex. G, ECF No. 68 at Pg ID 2288-95.) The Main Jail has six "holding tanks" and several "blocks." The smallest holding tank can house 13 inmates and the largest can house 37 inmates.³ (Id. at Pg ID 2296.) Within the blocks, the smallest cells hold eight inmates but most hold...