Martinez-Brooks v. Easter

Decision Date12 May 2020
Docket NumberNo. 3:20-cv-00569 (MPS),3:20-cv-00569 (MPS)
Citation459 F.Supp.3d 411
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
Parties Dianthe MARTINEZ-BROOKS et al., Plaintiffs, v. D. EASTER & Michael Carvajal, Defendants.

David S. Golub, Jonathan M. Levine, Silver, Golub & Teitell, Stamford, CT, Marisol Orihuela, Jerome N. Frank Legal Services - Wall St Yale Law School, Alexandra Harrington, New Haven, CT, Sarah French Russell, Tessa Baxter Bialek, Legal Clinic, Quinnipiac University School of Law, Hamden, CT, for Plaintiffs.

David Christopher Nelson, John B. Hughes, Michelle Lynn McConaghy, Jillian R. Orticelli, United States Attorney's Office, Nathaniel Michael Putnam, DOJ-USAO, New Haven, CT, for Defendants.

RULING ON MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND MOTION TO DISMISS

Michael P. Shea, U.S.D.J.

I. INTRODUCTION

On March 27, 2020, Congress gave federal prison officials an extraordinary tool to confront the extraordinary threat posed by the novel coronavirus within prison walls: the authority to transfer any federal inmate from prison to confinement in his or her home. A week later, the Attorney General of the United States urged the Director of the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") to "maximize" the use of that tool as soon as possible, stating in an April 3 memorandum that "[g]iven the speed with which this disease has spread through the general public," and the Bureau's "profound obligation to protect the health and safety of all inmates," "it is clear that time is of the essence." ECF No. 24-2 at 48-49. The Attorney General's memo was triggered by an outbreak of COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, at the Danbury Federal Correctional Institution ("FCI Danbury"), a low security prison in Danbury, Connecticut, and two other federal prisons; the memo directed the BOP to "immediately review all inmates who have COVID-19 risk factors" for potential placement in home confinement, "starting with inmates incarcerated at ... FCI Danbury" and the other two facilities. Id. at 49. This case – brought by four inmates at FCI Danbury – involves an apparent failure of the Warden and staff at FCI Danbury to take these exhortations seriously. The four inmates, all of whom have COVID-19 risk factors, have made a preliminary showing that officials at FCI Danbury are making only limited use of their home confinement authority, as well as other tools at their disposal to protect inmates during the outbreak, and that these failures amount to deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to inmates in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, I grant in part the inmates’ motion for a temporary restraining order and issue an order that requires the Warden at FCI Danbury to adopt a process for evaluating inmates with COVID-19 risk factors for home confinement and other forms of release that is both far more accelerated and more clearly focused on the critical issues of inmate and public safety than the current process. Factual disputes as to other issues the inmates raise preclude me from granting further relief at this time, but I also order an expedited period of discovery and schedule a hearing for June 11, 2020, to adjudicate the inmates’ motion for preliminary injunction.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 27, the inmates (the "Petitioners") filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against the Warden of FCI Danbury and the Director of the Bureau of Prisons (the "Respondents"). They sought to represent a class consisting of all inmates in the men's prison and the two women's prisons making up FCI Danbury, as well as a "medically vulnerable" subclass consisting of those inmates with COVID-19 risk factors. They alleged that "[t]he only effective way to minimize the potential devastation from COVID-19 in BOP facilities generally and FCI Danbury in particular is to downsize immediately the incarcerated population and, for the prisoners who remain at the institution, to undertake aggressively the detection, prevention, and treatment measures that public health and medical experts have recommended, including effective social distancing." ECF No. 1 at 34. They further alleged that Respondents were violating the Eighth Amendment by "fail[ing] to use the BOP's available statutory authority to reduce the population of FCI Danbury to mitigate the severe risk posed by COVID-19," ECF No. 1 at 41, and by failing to take adequate safety measures—including distancing, hygiene, testing, and medical treatment—to protect inmates during the outbreak.

The Petition seeks a wide range of relief, including an order "requiring Respondents to release from custody or to home confinement members of the [medically vulnerable] Subclass and requiring Respondents to provide medically adequate social distancing and health care and sanitation for members of the Class who remain." ECF No. 1 at 66.

On April 30, the Petitioners filed an "emergency motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction," seeking an order requiring Respondents to "enlarge [i.e. , transfer] to home confinement all women currently housed in the satellite camp at FCI Danbury," "enlarge to home confinement all members of the medically vulnerable Subclass,"1 and "implement appropriate measures to maximize social distancing and improve hygiene" for the remaining inmates or transfer them to safer BOP facilities. ECF No. 14 at 1. Together with their Petition and motion, Petitioners filed declarations from inmates housed at each of the three prisons within FCI Danbury, as well as declarations from experts and other evidence.

On May 5, the Respondents filed a joint motion to dismiss the habeas petition under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and an opposition to the motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The Respondents argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the habeas petition, that it failed state a claim, and that the Petitioners’ motion should be denied. With regard to jurisdiction, the Respondents argued, among other things, that the Court was prohibited from entertaining the Petitioners’ requests for "enlargement", because doing so would exceed the limited authority of district courts to modify sentences once they are imposed; that the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626, foreclosed such relief; and that the Petitioners had failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The Respondents also submitted a lengthy declaration by the Warden and defended her efforts to combat the COVID-19 crisis on the merits, detailing safety measures the Warden had imposed at FCI Danbury, including enhanced sanitation, quarantine of inmates, isolation of groups of inmates, the provision of masks and other protective equipment to inmates and staff, and delivery of food and programming directly to the living units. Finally, the Respondents argued that this habeas petition cannot be maintained as a class action.

I held oral argument on May 6, 2020, and now issue this ruling.

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The factual background is taken from the Petition, the declarations submitted by Petitioners, and the Warden's declaration.

A. The Petitioners

Petitioners are four inmates currently serving terms of imprisonment at FCI Danbury. Petitioners suffer from medical conditions that place them at higher risk for serious illness or death from the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus ("COVID-19"). They bring this habeas petition on behalf of themselves and a putative class of all inmates currently in custody at FCI Danbury, or who will be in custody at FCI Danbury during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic ("the Class"), as well as a subclass consisting of all such individuals who are also at heightened risk for serious illness or death from COVID-19 ("the Medically Vulnerable Subclass").

Petitioner Dianthe Martinez-Brooks is a 50-year-old woman currently housed in FCI Danbury's women's minimum-security camp. ECF No. 1 ("Petition") ¶ 1. Ms. Martinez-Brooks suffers from systematic lupus erythematosus

, an inflammatory autoimmune disease of the connective tissue

, for which she takes corticosteroids. Id. The prolonged use of corticosteroids can cause a person to be immunocompromised.2 Ms. Martinez-Brooks also suffers from asthma and hypertension. Id. She is serving a 48-month sentence for wire fraud, and her projected release date is June 25, 2022. ECF No. 1-3 at 2.

Petitioner Kenneth Cassidy is a 54-year-old man currently housed at FCI Danbury's men's prison, a low-security facility. ECF No. 1-4 at 2. He has had three heart attacks

, has had pneumonia in his right lung more than 20 times, and suffers from multiple chronic medical conditions, including asthma, coronary artery disease, and hypertension. Id. He is morbidly obese. Id. at 3. Mr. Cassidy is serving a 5 year sentence for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and willful failure to file an income tax return. Id. His projected release date is March 31, 2021 and his projected home confinement release date is October 1, 2020. Id.

Petitioner Rejeanne Collier is a 64-year-old woman currently housed in the Women's Camp. Petition ¶ 2. She suffers from lupus

, hypertension, and hepatitis C and has been treated for cancer while in custody. Id. She is serving a 15 ½ year term of imprisonment for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin. ECF No. 24-2 at 38-39.

Petitioner Jackie Madore is a 50-year-old woman currently housed in the low security satellite prison. Petition ¶ 3. She suffers from hypertension

, hypothyroidism, and hepatitis C. Id.

B. The COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic is an ongoing, once-in-a-century public health crisis to which no reader will need much introduction. As of May 11, 2020, there have been a whopping 1.3 million confirmed cases and roughly 80,000 deaths from COVID-19 in the United States alone. Cases in the U.S. , CDC.gov (last updated May 11, 2020).3 Shops, restaurants, and offices remain shuttered in many states, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
83 cases
  • Onosamba-Ohindo v. Barr, 1:20-CV-00290 EAW
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • September 2, 2020
    ...respondent is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held[.]"))); see also Martinez-Brooks v. Easter , No. 3:20-CV-00569 (MPS), 459 F.Supp.3d 411, 446–47 (D. Conn. May 12, 2020) (holding dismissal of the § 2241 petition against the Director of the Bureau of Prisons was appro......
  • United States v. Gonzales
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • June 1, 2021
    ...to prevail on their eighth amendment claim of deliberate medical indifference ...." Motion at 9 (citing Martinez-Brooks v. Easter, 459 F. Supp. 3d 411 (D. Conn. 2020) (Shea, J.)). b. The First Step Act.Gonzales asserts that, under the First Step Act, "Congress allowed the sentencing courts ......
  • Seth v. McDonough
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • May 21, 2020
    ...4, 2020), ECF No. 62, Ex. A; but see Swain v. Junior , 958 F.3d 1081, 1091-92 (11th Cir. 2020) ; Martinez-Brooks v. Easter , No. 3:20-cv-00569, 459 F.Supp.3d 411, 433–34 (D. Conn. May 12, 2020).17 Even if the PLRA did not apply, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated the prop......
  • Malam v. Adducci
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • July 31, 2020
    ...Wilson v. Williams , Case No. 20-00794, 455 F.Supp.3d 467, 475-76 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 22, 2020) and Martinez-Brooks v. Easter , No. 20-00569, 459 F.Supp.3d 411, 450-52 (D. Conn. May 12, 2020) (recognizing that "more stringent standards" may apply to habeas class certification)).)In United State......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT