Wilson v. Williams

• Decision Date: 22 April 2020
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 4:20-cv-00794
• Citation: 455 F.Supp.3d 467
• Parties: Craig WILSON, et al., Petitioners, v. Mark WILLIAMS, et al., Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

455 F.Supp.3d 467

Craig WILSON, et al., Petitioners,

v.Mark WILLIAMS, et al., Respondents.

CASE NO. 4:20-cv-00794

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio.

Signed April 22, 2020

Mark A. Vander Laan, Dinsmore & Shohl, David A. Singleton, Michael L. Zuckerman, Cincinnati, OH, Freda J. Levenson, ACLU of Ohio, Joseph W. Mead, Cleveland, OH, David J. Carey, ACLU of Ohio, Columbus, OH, for Petitioners.

James R. Bennett, II, Sara E. DeCaro, Office of the U.S. Attorney - Cleveland Northern District of Ohio, Cleveland, OH, for Respondents.

ORDER

[Resolving Doc. 1]

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

On April 13, 2020, Petitioners, inmates at Elkton Federal Correctional Institution, brought this emergency habeas action seeking release from Elkton due to the spread of COVID-19 within the prison.¹ Petitioners claim to represent both a class of all Elkton inmates as well as a subclass of medically vulnerable inmates.² Respondents opposed.³

On April 17, 2020 the Court held a hearing on the matter. On April 18, 2020, both parties filed additional materials in response to the Court's hearing inquiries.⁴

For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioners' motion for relief is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. COVID-19 at Elkton

State government and the media have well documented the spread of COVID-19 and the efforts to contain the virus and limit its impact. The virus's highly-infectious nature and the risks it poses, especially to medically vulnerable populations, has led to the implementation of unprecedented measures throughout the country and the world.

While research concerning the virus is ongoing, for some time health officials have known and reported that asymptomatic persons spread the virus.⁵ A large percentage of coronavirus-infected citizens are asymptomatic.⁶ These asymptomatic persons show no, or limited, symptoms. Yet, they spread the virus.

Due to this threat from infected but asymptomatic individuals, testing, tracing and treatment became the first mitigation responsibilities. As the virus has become more widespread, state government has directed citizens to reduce the spread not only through careful hygiene practices, but also through social distancing and isolation.

For inmates in our country's prisons the virus is no less a threat, but distancing measures are only minimally available.

Defendants Elkton officials have implemented measures to lessen the COVID-19 threat. Elkton segregates new inmates for fourteen days.⁷ Elkton officials evaluate existing inmates with virus symptoms to determine whether isolation or testing is appropriate.⁸ They check inmate and staff temperatures.⁹ Elkton officials segregate inmates for fourteen days before allowing the inmates to leave Elkton.¹⁰

But despite their efforts, the Elkton officials fight a losing battle. A losing battle for staff. A losing battle for inmates.

The parties to the present action dispute some of the factual details of the current conditions within Elkton. Even in light of these disputes, the prison's "dorm-style" design guarantees that inmates remain in close proximity to one another.¹¹ With the shockingly limited available testing and the inability to distance inmates, COVID-19 is going to continue to spread, not only among the inmate population, but also among the staff.

According to Respondents, Elkton has had 59 confirmed cases of COVID-19 among inmates.¹² The number of infected staff members, 46, is almost as high.¹³ The number has risen even in the days since the initiation of this lawsuit and will continue to do so absent intervention.

Notably, it is unlikely that these figures represent the actual number of cases at the institution, given the paltry number of tests the federal government has made available for the testing of Elkton's inmates.

To date, Elkton has received only 50 COVID-19 swab tests and one Abbott Rapid testing machine with 25 rapid tests.¹⁴ Most swab tests have already been used. Because the Department of Justice has given BOP so few tests, Elkton medical staff has needed to triage test usage.

Respondents represent that "test swabs are back-ordered until July or August," but they "believe that they will receive an additional 25 rapid test[s]" each week.¹⁵ These additional tests are all but useless considering Elkton's 2,400 inmates.

Recent experience at another Ohio correctional facility, Marion Correctional Institution, run by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, shows how quickly and insidiously the virus spreads among a tightly quartered prison population.

Both Elkton and Marion are low security prisons and house approximately 2,500 inmates.¹⁶

The State of Ohio has tested its prisoners en masse for COVID-19. At Marion 1,950 inmates tested positive for COVID-19.¹⁷ This number includes large numbers of inmates who were asymptomatic and would otherwise not have been tested.¹⁸

Everything suggests that if BOP tested as ODRC commendably has, results would show that the virus has become equally widespread within Elkton. However, without testing there is no way to know how many Elkton inmates have the virus.

The Ohio prisons virus response undercuts BOP's ability to argue that testing is either unavailable or is impossible. Why has the Justice Department allocated Elkton an entirely insignificant number of tests while Ohio has been able to pull off mass testing across not only Marion, but at multiple institutions?

While the COVID-19 tests inadequacy is one area of grave concern, testing is only one part of the multi-faceted approach institutions like Elkton must take to reduce the virus's spread.

Respondents report that the prison, in accordance with BOP guidance, has changed its operations to try to limit the virus's spread.¹⁹ For instance, the prison has implemented health screening measures for various groups of inmates, staff, and civilians.²⁰ These are all good efforts.

However, once the virus is inside the prison, as it already is at Elkton, screening measures can only be so effective. And screening will only help to identify individuals with active symptoms, not those asymptomatic individuals who can nevertheless spread the virus undetected.

Respondents have also implemented "modified operations" to somewhat reduce inmate contact with each other. Elkton allows inmate housing units of 150 to pick up pre-packaged meals, receive dispensed medications, and visit the commissary with only a single housing unit moving around the institution at one time.²¹ Better practices, but not enough.

Respondents attempt to liken each housing unit to a "family unit." They say that each unit is akin to unincarcerated community members who live with roommates or family.²² They say that each housing unit is separate from other units, visitors, and sick inmates.²³

But each single housing unit includes about 150 people.²⁴ Respondents ignore that some unit inmates nonetheless circulate throughout the prison as "essential" workers. Because some untested inmates circulate throughout Elkton, the housing units are not truly isolated. And with 150 "family members," there are significant opportunities to increase the risk of spread. Within each housing unit there seems to be little chance of obstructing the spread of the virus.

Respondents say that soap and disinfectant are readily available, a fact that Petitioners dispute.²⁵ However, these supplies can only be so useful in an environment where the inmates are constantly in close proximity to one another. Likewise, the education about hygiene and social distancing Respondents tout is only effective if the inmates have the supplies and physical space to put such knowledge into practice.²⁶

Furthermore, while the deteriorating health conditions at Elkton pose a danger for each of the 2,400 men who are incarcerated at Elkton, the institution's inability to stop the spread of the virus among the inmates in its care poses an even greater risk for inmates whose medical conditions put them at higher risk of death if they contract the virus.²⁷

Plus, while this litigation concerns Elkton's conditions for its inmates, the same conditions endanger prison staff, who must continue to go to work despite the virus's spread throughout the facility. And the Elkton spread endangers the staff's families who come into contact with Elkton's undoubtedly exposed staff.

In light of these realities, Petitioners, inmates at Elkton, bring the present action. They sue on behalf of themselves and on behalf a class of all current and future Elkton inmates.²⁸

They bring additional claims on behalf of the "Medically-Vulnerable Subclass," defined as:

[A]ll current and future persons incarcerated at Elkton over the age of 50, as well as all current and future persons incarcerated at Elkton of any age who experience: chronic lung disease

or moderate to severe asthma ; serious heart conditions; conditions that can cause a person to be immunocompromised, including cancer treatment, smoking, bone marrow or organ transplantation, immune deficiencies, poorly controlled HIV or AIDS or prolonged use of corticosteroids and other immune weakening medications; severe obesity (defined as a body mass index of 40 or higher); diabetes ; chronic kidney disease or undergoing dialysis; or liver disease.²⁹

Petitioners seek certification of the classes. In addition, they request:

a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, permanent injunction, and/or writ of habeas corpus requiring Respondents to identify within six (6) hours of the Court's order, and submit to the Court a list of, all Medically-Vulnerable Subclass Members, and release all such persons within twenty-four (24) hours, with such release to include supports to ensure social distancing and other expert-recommended measures to prevent the spread of coronavirus.³⁰

Petitioners define release as "discharge of incarcerated persons from the physical confines of Elkton, not necessarily release from custody."³¹ Petitioners suggest that "[r]elease options may include, but are not limited to:...