Swain v. Junior

• Citation: 961 F.3d 1276
• Decision Date: 15 June 2020
• Docket Number: No. 20-11622,20-11622
• Parties: Anthony SWAIN, Alen Blanco, Bayardo Cruz, Ronniel Flores, Winfred Hill, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Daniel JUNIOR, Miami-Dade County, Florida, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)

961 F.3d 1276

Anthony SWAIN, Alen Blanco, Bayardo Cruz, Ronniel Flores, Winfred Hill, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.Daniel JUNIOR, Miami-Dade County, Florida, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 20-11622

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 15, 2020

Alec George Karakatsanis, Katherine Claire Hubbard, Alexandria Twinem, Civil Rights Corps, Washington, DC, Emily Barnet, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLP, New York, NY, 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, Emma Simson, Daniel Stephen Volchok, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLP, Washington, DC, 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 Defendant-Appellant

David Giller, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, LLP, New York, NY, for Amici Curiae Robert L. Cohen, Joseph Goldenson, Brie Williams

Danielle Jefferis, Univ. of Denver Sturm College of Law, Denver, CO, for Amici Curiae Martin Horn, Steve Martin, Richard Morgan, Dan Pacholke, Emmitt Sparkman, Phil Stanley, Eldon Vail

Andrew Kim, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae Sharon Dolovich, Betsy Ginsberg, Aaron Littman, John Pfaff, Alexander A. Reinert, Margo Schlanger

Before MARTIN and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges, and WATKINS,^* District Judge.

NEWSOM, Circuit Judge:

It would be a colossal understatement to say that the COVID-19 pandemic has had far-reaching effects. It has changed everything from the way that friends and families interact to the way that businesses and schools operate to the way that courts hear and decide cases. The virus, though, poses particularly acute challenges for the administration of the country's jails and prisons. Because incarcerated inmates are necessarily confined in close quarters, a contagious virus represents a grave health risk to them—and graver still to those who have underlying conditions that render them medically vulnerable. And for their part, prison officials are faced with the unenviable (and often thankless) task of maintaining institutional order and security while simultaneously taking proper care of the individuals in their custody.

Our plaintiffs here—a group of medically vulnerable inmates—challenged the conditions of their confinement at Miami's Metro West Detention Center. In particular, they assert that Miami-Dade County and Daniel Junior, the Director of the Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitations Department, have inadequately responded to the COVID-19 outbreak and thereby violated their constitutional rights. Holding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim and would suffer irreparable injury in the absence of immediate relief, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida enjoined the county and Junior to take a number of precautionary measures to halt the virus’ spread and ordered them to file regular reports regarding the virus’ status.

A motions panel of this Court stayed the injunction pending resolution of the defendants’ appeal. After considering the merits, and with the benefit of outstanding written briefs and oral arguments, we now conclude that the district court erred in issuing the injunction.¹ Accordingly, we vacate the injunction and remand the case to the district court.

I

A

This litigation began on April 5, 2020, when plaintiffs Anthony Swain, Alen Blanco, Bayardo Cruz, Ronniel Flores, Winfred Hill, Deondre Willis, and Peter Bernal—medically vulnerable pretrial detainees at Metro West Detention Center in Miami, Florida—filed a class-action complaint against Miami-Dade County and Daniel Junior in his official capacity as Director of the Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Center.² They sought to represent themselves, a class of "all current and future persons detained at Metro West during the ... pandemic," and a subclass of medically vulnerable detainees. The plaintiffs asked for declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants had violated (and were continuing to violate) the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by acting with "deliberate indifference" to the serious risk posed by COVID-19. In particular, the plaintiffs asserted that "Metro West has neither the capacity nor the ability to comply with public health guidelines to prevent an outbreak of COVID-19 and cannot provide for" their safety. More particularly still, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants didn't "give [them] the ability to practice safe social distancing" and that "conditions force[d] them to sit, stand, walk, eat, and sleep within six feet of another person," and, furthermore, that the defendants weren't providing adequate cleaning supplies or "free hygiene or personal sanitation supplies." On behalf of the medically vulnerable subclass, the plaintiffs separately petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking immediate release. Along with their complaint, the plaintiffs also filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, as well as a motion to certify the class.

On April 7, the district court entered a 14-day TRO, based largely on the CDC's guidance for correctional facilities. See Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities (March 23, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/guidance-correctional-detention.pdf [hereinafter CDC Guidance]. The guidance provided suggestions regarding cleaning, hygiene, and disease-prevention practices, and also recommended that detention facilities "[i]mplement social distancing strategies to increase the physical space between incarcerated/detained persons (ideally 6 feet between all individuals, regardless of the presence of symptoms)." Id. at 9–11 (emphasis omitted). Among other precautions, the district court's TRO required the defendants to provide for six-foot spacing between inmates "[t]o the maximum extent possible" and to ensure that each inmate received soap and cleaning supplies. The TRO further ordered the defendants to file a notice describing the measures that Metro West had employed and identifying medically vulnerable individuals.

The defendants’ notice of compliance, filed two days later, advised the district court that they had, among other things:

• provided inmates access to cleaning supplies;

• provided personal hygiene supplies, including liquid soap and paper towels;

• acquired "industrial grade fogging type sanitization equipment to sanitize housing units when inmates are in recreation (three times per week)";

• issued masks to all inmates and employees;

• cancelled inmate visitation;

• implemented mandatory wellness screenings for all staff;

• formalized a "new intake quarantine protocol";

• made efforts "to successfully decrease overall inmate population and allow for increased social distancing";

• increased awareness about social distancing and instructed staff "to continually walk throughout [Metro West] to enforce social distancing by officers and inmates";

• modified the "sick call process" in order "to allow for an expedited review" of inmates with COVID-19 symptoms;

• posted notices "in English, Creole and Spanish that encourage social distancing and proper hygiene" and provided other information about the virus; and

• instituted a "COVID-19 Incident Command Center and a Response Line" for tracking the virus’ impact on inmates and staff.

The defendants’ notice indicated that they had taken many of these measures even before the plaintiffs had filed suit.

On April 14, the district court extended the TRO and commissioned two independent experts to inspect Metro West, evaluate the defendants’ compliance with the TRO, and submit a report with their findings. The experts’ report—which was filed seven days later—explained that Metro West's administrators and employees were "doing their best balancing social distancing and regulation applicable to the facility" and that they "should be commended for their commitment to protect the staff and the inmates." Expert Report at 2. In particular, the report observed that Metro West was conducting staff screenings, that the facility appeared clean, that cleaning supplies were available, that inmates and staff had masks, and that inmates were "staggered and appropriately distanced when going to medical." Id. at 2–3. The report also stated, however, that while "[t]he bunks are staggered with head to foot configuration," there wasn't six feet between them, that inmates congregated around tables and televisions, that "[t]he areas with the telephones do not allow for social distancing," and that most of the units "were too overcrowded to allow for adequate social distancing." Id. at 2. The report recommended testing, increased screening of inmates, and "an urgent decrease in the population density" because "the high census of Metro West ... in addition to the dormitory style housing units, makes it impossible to follow CDC guidance for social distancing measures." Id. at 3.

B

In the run-up to the preliminary-injunction hearing, both parties submitted additional evidence. For their part, the defendants notified the court that they had purchased and installed ionizers to purify the air and body-heat cameras to measure inmates’ temperatures, and had begun testing even asymptomatic inmates. The defendants also explained that through their collaboration with state criminal-justice officials, nearly 900 inmates had been released—reducing Metro West's population to less than 70% of its capacity—and that they would continue working to reduce the inmate population. The defendants further stated that "[v]...