Louis Peoples v. Long
| Decision Date | 13 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 1:20-cv-02116-RBJ-NYW |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
| Parties | LOUIS PEOPLES, JR., Plaintiff, v. JEFF LONG, DENNY OWENS, and CYRUS CLARKSON, Defendants. |
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the court for recommendation on the following:
The undersigned considers the Second Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Leave to Amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Order Referring Case dated July 22, 2020 [Doc. 6], and Memoranda dated May 5, 2021 [Doc. 51] and November 29, 2021 [Doc. 74]. This court concludes that oral argument will not materially assist in the resolution of these matters. Accordingly, having carefully reviewed the Second Motion to Dismiss and associated briefing [Doc. 58; Doc. 64], the Motion for Leave to Amend, the docket, and applicable law, this court respectfully RECOMMENDS that Defendants' Second Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend be DENIED.
Plaintiff an individual currently incarcerated at Sterling Correctional Facility (“SCF”) and in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections (“CDOC”) initiated this action pro se on July 20, 2020, by filing a Complaint asserting two claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his Eighth Amendment rights.[1] See generally [Doc. 1]. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Defendants have failed to take adequate measures to protect Plaintiff and other “members in his same class” from contracting COVID-19. [Id. at ¶ 2]. In his first claim for relief (“Claim I”), Plaintiff alleges that Defendants require medically vulnerable inmates, including Plaintiff, to work in the SCF kitchen during the COVID-19 pandemic. [Id. at 5-8]. In his second claim for relief (“Claim II”), Plaintiff alleges that he has been placed at greater risk of contracting COVID-19 because fellow members of his “incentive program” have contracted COVID-19; his cellmate is 26 years old which “makes him more at risk for contracting the virus”; and the CDOC has failed to implement adequate preventative measures to protect against COVID-19. [Id. at 8- 9]. Plaintiff's Complaint seeks relief in the form of (1) a declaratory judgment; (2) an injunction[2](a) preventing Defendants and CDOC staff more generally from placing Plaintiff and other vulnerable inmates “in a position described above, ” and (b) and requiring an “adequate classification system” for vulnerable inmates; and (c) an order of compassionate release to home incarceration and electronic monitoring. [Id. at 10].
The following facts are drawn from Plaintiff's Complaint and are, unless otherwise noted, taken as true for purposes of the instant Second Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff is 66 years old and currently in CDOC custody and housed at SCF. [Doc. 1 at 2]. Plaintiff suffers from a variety of medical conditions including chronic asthma, heart disease, diabetes, epilepsy, hypertension, and vision impairment. [Id. at 6 ¶¶ 9-10]. These preexisting conditions make Plaintiff particularly susceptible to adverse outcomes should he be infected by the novel coronavirus and fall ill with the disease it causes, COVID-19. [Id. at 6 ¶¶ 8-9].
On March 11, 2020, the Executive Director of the CDOC, Dean Williams (“Director Williams”), issued an Executive Order in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. [Id. at 7 ¶ 13].
Therein, Director Williams stated that [Id.]. Shortly after Director Williams's Executive Order, a COVID-19 outbreak at SCF infected hundreds of inmates. [Id.]. Some inmates died from their infections. [Id.].
On April 14, 2020, SCF instituted a “complete lock-down, ” whereby Mr. Peoples, Jr. and his cellmate were isolated from all other inmates, including those within his living unit and the unit more generally. [Id. at 5 ¶ 4]. Mr. Peoples, Jr. was administered a COVID-19 test for the first time roughly one month later. [Id. at 5 ¶ 5]. He was tested for COVID-19 three more times on May 19, May 26, and June 1, 2020, respectively. [Id.].
Lockdown restrictions were lifted in Mr. Peoples, Jr.'s housing unit on June 19, 2020. [Id.]. Three days later, a second outbreak led to roughly 500 inmates contracting COVID-19 in the “East and West yards.” [Id. at 5 ¶ 6]. Because many of these inmates were working in food services prior to the outbreak, Defendant Major Owens, who oversees facility staffing and inmate feeding, subsequently ordered his staff to make inmates participating in the “incentive program” available to work in food services. [Id.].
Defendant Captain Clarkson then ordered Mr. Peoples, Jr. and other “elderly and medically vulnerable inmates, ” ranging in age between 60 and 84 years old, to work in food services for eight to ten hours per day. [Id. at 5-6 ¶ 7]. When working in food services, inmates are locked into the kitchen with approximately 15 staff members and 50 inmates. [Id. at 8 ¶ 18]. The kitchen is a “perfect breeding grounds to contract the virus” because the virus “is surging” and some of these individuals “have had” COVID-19 and/or fail to wear face masks at all times. [Id.].
Plaintiff claims that pursuant to Colorado Governor Jared Polis's (“Governor Polis”) April 26, 2020[3] Executive Order, Plaintiff and vulnerable inmates like him (1) should stay in their housing units, and (2) cannot be compelled to perform in-person work for any business or government functions, critical or otherwise. [Id. at 6 ¶ 8]. The Executive Order defines vulnerable individuals to include those aged 65 years and older. [Id.]. In addition, vulnerable individuals include people with chronic lung disease or moderate to severe asthma; serious heart conditions; and/or compromised immune systems. [Id.].
In light of his medical vulnerabilities, Plaintiff begged Captain Clarkson to remove his name from the food services roster, but his pleas went unanswered. [Id. at 6-7 ¶ 12]. Plaintiff's COVID-related concerns extend beyond his assignment to food services work. Four inmates within Plaintiff's incentive program have tested positive for COVID-19. [Id. at 9 ¶ 4]. These individuals “were placed right back” in Plaintiff's unit with Plaintiff and at least 15 other inmates. [Id.]. Plaintiff further believes he is at greater risk for contracting COVID-19 because his cellmate is 26 years old and thus “makes him more at risk for contracting the virus”; inmates cannot properly wash their face masks; SCF has failed to provide soap on a consistent basis; and SCF remains non-compliant with “many rules and requirements.” [Id. at 9 ¶ 5]. SCF was also allegedly late in responding to and/or implements procedures to help combat the virus by failing to pass out masks; rejecting from the infirmary inmates displaying symptoms of COVID-19; testing inmates only once for COVID-19; and subjecting the general inmate population to inmates that have previously tested positive for the virus. [Id.].
On July 20, 2020, Mr. Peoples, Jr. initiated this action, [Doc. 1], and filed a Prisoner's Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (“Motion to Proceed IFP”), [Doc. 2]. Based on the foregoing allegations, Mr. Peoples, Jr. asserted two claims under § 1983 for Defendants' alleged violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. See generally [id.]. In his prayer for relief, Mr. Peoples, Jr. sought (1) a declaration that Defendants' conduct violates the Eighth Amendment; (2) “a preliminary or permanent injunction” preventing Defendants and other CDOC staff from placing Mr. Peoples, Jr. or other vulnerable inmates “in a position described above” (referencing his Complaint); and (3) an order of compassionate release to home incarceration. [Id. at 10]. The following day, the Honorable Gordon P. Gallagher ordered Plaintiff to submit a copy of his inmate account statement for the six months immediately preceding this action, as required for Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP, and ordered the case be reassigned. [Doc. 5]. This matter was assigned to Judge Jackson and drawn to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. [Id.]. On August 10, 2020, and upon referral from Judge Jackson, [Doc. 12], the undersigned granted Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP.
On October 5, 2020, [4] Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a cognizable claim (“First Motion to Dismiss”). [Doc. 20]. Plaintiff filed his Response to the First Motion to Dismiss on October 30, 2020. [Doc. 22]. That same day Plaintiff filed a Motion for Emergency Injunction, seeking a preliminary injunction related to allegedly unsafe conditions at SCF and retaliation by SCF staff against Plaintiff. [Doc. 24]. Judge Jackson subsequently denied Plaintiff's Motion for Emergency Injunction, explaining that the court could not entertain further action in this case until it decided the jurisdictional issue raised by Defendants' First Motion to Dismiss, which was not yet ripe. [Doc. 25, filed November 3, 2020]. Defendants filed...
To continue reading
Request your trial