Swain v. Junior

• Decision Date: 29 April 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:20-cv-21457-KMW
• Citation: 457 F.Supp.3d 1287
• Parties: Anthony SWAIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Daniel JUNIOR, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

457 F.Supp.3d 1287

Anthony SWAIN, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Daniel JUNIOR, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-21457-KMW

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

Signed April 29, 2020

Alexandria Twinem, Katherine Hubbard, Pro Hac Vice, Thomas B. Harvey, Pro Hac Vice, Tiffany Yang, Pro Hac Vice, Alec Karakatsanis, Pro Hac Vice, Washington, DC, Katherine Alena Sanoja, Rodney Quinn Smith, II, GST, LLP, Meena Jagannath, Community Justice Project, Inc., Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, Miami, FL, for Plaintiffs.

Bernard Pastor, Ana Angelica Viciana, Erica Sunny Shultz Zaron, Ezra Saul Greenberg, Jennifer Laura Hochstadt, Zachary Edward Vosseler, Miami, FL, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

KATHLEEN M. WILLIAMS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs' emergency motion for a preliminary injunction. (DE 3). Defendant Daniel Junior, in his official capacity as Director of the Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department ("MDCR"), and Defendant Miami-Dade County (collectively, "Defendants") oppose the motion. (DE 67; DE 65). This Order follows the telephonic preliminary injunction hearing held on April 27-28, 2020, at which both Parties presented argument and evidence for the Court's consideration. (DE 96; DE 97).¹ For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction (DE 3) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART . Plaintiffs' motion for immediate release under Section 2241 is DENIED ; Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction under Section 1983 is GRANTED IN PART for a period of 45 days.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Anthony Swain, Alen Blanco, Bayardo Cruz, Ronniel Flores, Deondre Willis, Peter Bernal and Winfred Hill,² who are all pretrial detainees currently being held at Metro West Detention Center ("Metro West") in Miami, Florida, filed their complaint, along with an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, against Defendants, on April 5, 2020. (DE 1; DE 3). Plaintiffs present two primary claims in their complaint and emergency motion.³ First, Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction requiring Defendants to "follow several procedures, recommended by medical professionals and the CDC Guidance on the management of COVID-19 in jails and correctional settings, that ensure those detained at Metro West: 1) are informed about the existence of COVID-19; 2) can practice social distancing; 3) can maintain necessary hygiene; and 4) have access to adequate and timely medical treatment to screen, test, and treat symptoms." (DE 3 at 13). This relief is sought pursuant to their claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs argue that "Defendants are deliberately indifferent to the risk that Plaintiffs will contract COVID-19 within the current conditions of Metro West in violation of the Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause." Id. at 14. Second, Plaintiffs seek a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 requiring the immediate release of a class of all medically vulnerable pretrial detainees currently held at Metro West. Id. at 13-14.

A. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

After holding three telephonic conferences with the Parties over the two days immediately after this case was filed, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs' emergency motion and entered a temporary restraining order ("TRO") against Defendants on April 7, 2020. (DE 25). This TRO addressed the conditions of confinement challenged in Plaintiffs' emergency motion, but did not address Plaintiffs' 2241 claim because the Court found that further information and briefing was necessary before reaching a preliminary decision on that claim.

As an initial matter, the Court ordered Defendants to provide the following information by April 9, 2020: (1) a list of individuals who met various criteria related to medical issues (as outlined in the order), and (2) "a notice describing the particular measures being employed to protect these individuals from the risk of COVID-19." (DE 25 at 2). Defendants complied with the Court's order and provided this information in a timely manner. (DE 29; DE 30). On April 9, 2020, the Court entered a paperless order (DE 28) setting a telephonic hearing to discuss an expedited briefing scheduling on Plaintiffs' claim for habeas relief and allowing the Parties to file supplemental briefing as to that claim ahead of the scheduling conference, which both Parties did. (DE 35; DE 36). The paperless order also required Plaintiffs to submit "a notice containing the following information as to each named Plaintiff: (1) criminal case number(s) for current charges; (3) statement of the charge(s); and (3) bond and status of bond." (DE 28). Plaintiffs timely submitted this information on April 12, 2020. (DE 36).

After holding two additional telephonic hearings with the Parties, the Court entered an amended briefing schedule regarding Plaintiffs' emergency motion on April 14, 2020. (DE 52). This order required Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs' emergency motion by April 21, 2020, and Plaintiffs to file a reply by April 25, 2020. Id. The order also designated two doctors—one from each of the lists of candidates proposed by the Parties—to conduct an inspection of Metro West by April 18, 2020 and required a report to be filed outlining their observations as to the conditions and other factors contained in the order. Id. That joint report was filed under seal on April 20, 2020, and, with the consent of the Parties, the written portion of the report was unsealed on April 21, 2020 (the "Report"). (DE 61; DE 65). The April 14, 2020 order also required that "[o]n April 16, 2020, and every three days going forward, Defendants shall file a notice with the Court listing the number of inmates and staff tested for COVID-19 at Metro West Detention Center, including the number whose test results were positive as of that date. Defendants shall also provide information as to the number of inmates who are being quarantined each day and shall specify the numbers of individuals who: (1) are being quarantined as a result of exhibiting COVID-19 symptoms, and (2) are being quarantined as a result of possible exposure to another individual who has COVID-19." (DE 52 at 3).⁴ As of April 28, 2020, 163 inmates and 17 staff tested positive for COVID-19. (DE 99).

B. THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

When this case was filed on April 5, 2020, no inmate at Metro West had tested positive for COVID-19. By April 28, 2020, 163 inmates had tested positive. (DE 99). As of the date of this Order, the United States is home to more than one million coronavirus cases. This number represents nearly one-third of the world's reported COVID-19 cases and includes at least 58,000 known deaths.⁵ See Joe Fox, et al. , 58,132 people have died from coronavirus in the U.S. , WASH. POST , (Mar. 27, 2020, updated Apr. 29, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/national/coronavirus-us-cases-deaths/. The one fact that is beyond peradventure is the unprecedented contagion of this virus and its potentially fatal consequences to medically vulnerable people, especially those living in dense congregate environments, such as assisted living facilities, detention centers and prisons. These extraordinary circumstances place us at the crossroads of public health and public safety, science and law, and constitutional and carceral demands and has occasioned judicial review in state and federal courts.

The following landscape is drawn from other orders that have been issued by courts addressing similar issues to those presented here. "COVID-19 is a disease caused by a novel coronavirus that began infecting humans in late 2019." Money v. Pritzker , No. 20-CV-2093, 453 F.Supp.3d 1103, 1112 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2020). "Symptoms include fever, cough

, shortness of breath, congestion, sneezing, fatigue, and diarrhea." Id. (internal citations omitted). "While some cases are mild, others require medical intervention, including hospitalization and intensive care." Id. "The virus spreads from person to person through respiratory droplets, close personal contact, and from contact with contaminated surfaces and objects." Id. "It is highly contagious." Id.

"Currently, there is no vaccine to protect against infection by COVID-19." Id. at 1112. "To prevent infection and mitigate the spread of the virus, the Center for Disease Control ("CDC") and other public health agencies have universally prescribed social distancing—every person should remain at a distance of at least six feet from every other person—and rigorous hygiene—including regular and thorough hand washing with soap and water, the use of alcohol-based hand sanitizer, proper sneeze and cough

etiquette, and frequent cleaning of all surfaces." Id. "The CDC recommends avoiding gatherings of more than 10 people." Id. "Individuals in congregate environments—places where people live, eat, and sleep in close proximity—face increased danger of contracting COVID-19, as demonstrated by the rapid spread of the virus through cruise ships and nursing homes." Id. "Despite social distancing recommendations, the disease has continued to spread [and] [t]he World Health Organization has declared COVID-19 to be a global pandemic." Id.

On March 27, 2020, the CDC issued guidance directed at institutional facilities to combat the spread of COVID-19. See Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities , Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention (Mar. 27, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/guidance-correctional-detention.pdf ("CDC Guidance"). These guidelines formed the basis of the TRO issued on April 7, 2020.

Medical experts agree that a reduction in the population of correctional facilities is the best way to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The unrebutted testimony of all the experts cited by Plaintiffs—Doctors Golob, Meyer, Stern,...