Swain v. Junior, No. 20-11622-C

• Decision Date: 05 May 2020
• Docket Number: No. 20-11622-C
• Citation: 958 F.3d 1081
• Parties: Anthony SWAIN, et al., Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. Daniel JUNIOR, in his official capacity as Director of the Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department, and Miami-Dade County, Florida, Defendants - Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

958 F.3d 1081

Anthony SWAIN, et al., Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.Daniel JUNIOR, in his official capacity as Director of the Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department, and Miami-Dade County, Florida, Defendants - Appellants.

No. 20-11622-C

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 5, 2020

Alec George Karakatsanis, Katherine Claire Hubbard, Alexandria Twinem, Civil Rights Corps, WASHINGTON, DC, Thomas B. Harvey, Tiffany Yang, Advancement Project, WASHINGTON, DC, Meena Jagannath, Community Justice Project, Inc., MIAMI, FL, Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, DLA Piper, LLP (US), MIAMI, FL, Katherine A. Sanoja, Rodney Quinn Smith, II, GST, LLP, MIAMI, FL, for Plaintiffs - Appellees.

Ezra Saul Greenberg, Bernard Pastor, Oren Rosenthal, Zachary Edward Vosseler, Jennifer L. Hochstadt, Ana Angelica Viciana, Erica S. Zaron, Miami-Dade County Attorney's Office, MIAMI, FL, for Defendants - Appellants.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Before: WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

No part of our country has escaped the effects of COVID-19. It is thus not surprising that several inmates at the Metro West Detention Center ("Metro West")—the largest direct-supervision jail facility in the State of Florida—have tested positive for the virus. This appeal concerns the adequacy of the measures implemented by Metro West to protect its prisoners from the spread of COVID-19.

On April 5, 2020, seven Metro West inmates filed a class action complaint challenging the conditions of the inmates’ confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and seeking habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for the named plaintiffs along with a "medically vulnerable" subclass of inmates.

At issue in this motion for a stay pending appeal is the preliminary injunction issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 29, 2020, against defendants Miami-Dade County and Daniel Junior, the Director of the Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitations Department ("MDCR"). The injunction requires the defendants to employ numerous safety measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and imposes extensive reporting requirements. Pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, we stay the injunction pending appeal and expedite the appeal.

I.

MDCR, a department of Miami-Dade County, operates Metro West. When the first case of COVID-19 in Miami-Dade County was reported in early March 2020, MDCR began enacting measures to protect inmates. Those measures included cancelling inmate visitation; screening arrestees, inmates, and staff; and advising staff of use of protective equipment and sanitation practices. On March 23, 2020, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC") issued the Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correction and Detention Facilities , (the "CDC Guidance"). MDCR reviewed the CDC Guidance and updated its practices. As the situation developed, MDCR continued to implement additional safety measures, including daily temperature screenings of all persons entering Metro West, establishing a "COVID-19 Incident Command Center and Response Line" to track testing and identify close contacts with the virus, developing a social hygiene campaign, and mandating that staff and inmates wear protective masks at all times. MDCR also implemented social distancing efforts, including staggering the dormitory bunks, requiring inmates to sleep head-to-toe to ensure further distancing, and instructing staff to encourage social distancing between inmates. The district court accepted as true that the defendants implemented these measures for purposes of issuing the preliminary injunction and did not resolve any factual disputes in favor of the plaintiffs.

On April 5, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a class action complaint on behalf of "all current and future persons detained at Metro West during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic." Among other deficiencies, the class action complaint alleged that the inmates at Metro West did not have enough soap or towels to wash their hands properly, waited days for medical attention, were "denied basic hygienic supplies" like laundry detergent and cleaning materials, and were forced to sleep only two feet apart. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of the entire class and immediate release from custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on behalf of the named plaintiffs and the medically vulnerable subclass.

The district court entered a temporary restraining order ("TRO") against the defendants on April 7, two days after the complaint was filed. Consistent with the TRO, the defendants screened all new arrestees and staff as they entered the facilities, enhanced cleaning and sanitation measures, made efforts to increase social distancing, issued masks to all staff and inmates, supplied paper towels in the restrooms, and quarantined inmates showing COVID-19 symptoms.

On April 29, following a telephonic evidentiary hearing, the district court entered a preliminary injunction against the defendants on the plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim.¹ The preliminary injunction enjoins the defendants to:

• "Effectively communicate to all people incarcerated at [Metro West], including low-literacy and non-English speaking people, sufficient information about COVID-19, measures taken to reduce the risk of transmission, and any changes in policies or practices to reasonably ensure that individuals are able to take precautions to prevent infection";

• "To the maximum extent possible considering [Metro West’s] current population level, provide and enforce adequate spacing of six feet or more between people incarcerated at Metro West so that social distancing can be accomplished";

• "Ensure that each incarcerated person receives, free of charge (1) an individual supply of soap, preferably liquid as recommended by the CDC, sufficient to allow frequent hand washing each day; (2) hand drying machines, or disposable paper towels as recommended by the CDC, and individual towels, sufficient for daily use; (3) an adequate supply of disinfectant products effective against the virus that causes COVID-19 for daily cleanings; and (4) an adequate supply of toilet paper sufficient for daily use";

• "Provide reasonable access to showers and to clean laundry";

• "Require that all MCDR staff wear personal protective equipment, including masks, and gloves when physically interacting with any person, and require that, absent extraordinary or unusual circumstances, a new pair of gloves is worn each time MDCR staff touch a different person; and require all inmate workers who are cleaning facilities or preparing food to follow this same protocol";

• "Require that all MDCR staff regularly wash their hands with soap and water or use hand sanitizer containing at least 60% alcohol";

• "Ensure access to proper testing for anyone displaying known symptoms of COVID-19 in accordance with CDC guidelines and for anyone who has come in contact with an individual who has tested positive for COVID-19";

• "Ensure that individuals identified as having COVID-19 or having been exposed to COVID-19 receive adequate medical care and are properly quarantined, with continued access to showers, mental health services, phone calls with family, and communications with counsel; individuals identified as having COVID-19 or having been exposed to COVID-19 shall not be placed in cells normally used for disciplinary confinement absent emergency circumstances";

• "Respond to all emergency (as defined by the medical community) requests for medical attention as soon as possible";

• "Provide sufficient disinfecting supplies consistent with CDC recommendations in each housing unit, free of charge, so incarcerated people can clean high-touch areas or any other items in the unit between each use";

• "Waive all medical co-pays for those experiencing COVID-19-related symptoms";

• "Waive all charges for medical grievances during this health crisis"; and

• "Provide face masks for inmates at Metro West. The face masks must be replaced at medically appropriate intervals, and Defendants must provide inmates with instruction on how to use a face mask and the reasons for its use."

The district court observed that the CDC’s Guidance "formed the basis" of these requirements. In order to ensure compliance, it further ordered the defendants to:

• "Continue providing the Court with updated information regarding the number of staff and inmates who have tested positive for, or are being quarantined because of, COVID-19. These notices shall be filed every three days for the duration of [the order]; Defendants shall also continue to provide this information to their state criminal justice partners";

• "Provide the [district court] with weekly reports containing the current population data for Metro West"; and

• "Submit, within 7 days of [the order], a proposal outlining steps Defendants will undertake to ensure additional social distancing safeguards in terms of housing inmates and inmate activity (medical visits, telephones, etc.)."

II.

"In considering whether to stay a preliminary injunction ... we examine the district court’s grant of the preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, reviewing de novo any underlying legal conclusions and for clear error any findings of fact." Democratic Exec. Comm. of Fla. v. Lee , 915 F.3d 1312, 1317 (11th Cir. 2019).

III.

A court considering whether to issue a stay "considers four factors: ‘(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.’ " Nken v. Holder , 556 U.S. 418, 426, 129 S.Ct. 1749, 173 L.Ed.2d...