Wilson v. Williams

Decision Date09 June 2020
Docket NumberNo. 20-3447,20-3447
Citation961 F.3d 829
Parties Craig WILSON, Eric Bellamy, Kendal Nelson, and Maximino Nieves, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Petitioners-Appellees, v. Mark WILLIAMS, in his official capacity as Warden of Elkton Federal Correctional Institution; Michael Carvajal, in his official capacity as the Federal Bureau of Prisons Director, Respondents-Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
OPINION

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge.

Petitioners, four inmates housed in the low-security Elkton Federal Correctional Institution and its satellite facility FSL Elkton (collectively "Elkton"), on behalf of themselves and others housed or to be housed there, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to obtain release from custody to limit their exposure to the COVID-19 virus. They sought to represent all current and future inmates, including a subclass of inmates who—through age and/or certain medical conditions—were particularly vulnerable to complications, including death, if they contracted COVID-19. The district court entered a preliminary injunction on April 22, 2020, directing Respondents Mark Williams, Elkton's warden, and Michael Carvajal, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") (together "BOP"), to (1) evaluate each subclass member's eligibility for transfer out of Elkton by any means, including compassionate release, parole or community supervision, transfer furlough, or non-transfer furlough within two weeks; (2) transfer those deemed ineligible for compassionate release to another BOP facility where testing is available and physical distancing is possible; and (3) not allow those transferred to return to Elkton until certain conditions were met.

On appeal, the BOP argues that (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and that the suit must comply with the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"); (2) petitioners have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their Eighth Amendment claim; and (3) the district court abused its discretion in granting the injunction.

We hold that jurisdiction was proper under § 2241, although § 2241 does not permit some of the relief petitioners seek. However, because the district court erred in concluding that petitioners have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their Eighth Amendment claim, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. We thus vacate the injunction.

I.

Petitioners filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic at the Elkton facilities. "Our task is ... to review the record that was before the district court at the time the preliminary injunction was entered." Johnson v. City of Memphis , 444 F. App'x 856, 860 n.2 (6th Cir. 2011) ; see also Ashcroft v. Am. Civil Liberties Union , 542 U.S. 656, 673, 124 S.Ct. 2783, 159 L.Ed.2d 690 (2004).

A.

The COVID-19 virus is highly infectious and can be transmitted easily from person to person. COVID-19 fatality rates increase with age and underlying health conditions such as cardiovascular disease

, respiratory disease, diabetes, and immune compromise. If contracted, COVID-19 can cause severe complications or death. Because there is no current vaccine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC") recommends preventative measures to decrease transmission such as physical distancing, mask wearing, and increasing focus on personal hygiene such as additional hand washing.

B.

Elkton is a low-security prison in Lisbon, Ohio, designed to house approximately 2,000 inmates at the main facility and 500 inmates at the satellite facility. The main facility consists of three buildings with six dormitory-style housing units; each unit holds approximately 300 inmates split between two sides. The satellite facility has two housing units, each with approximately 250 inmates. Each side of a housing unit contains approximately 150 bunks resulting in two to three inmates sharing a cube and sleeping a few feet away from each other.

In response to the pandemic, the BOP began a phased approach nationwide. Phase One of its action plan began in January 2020 and involved creating a strategic response plan. On March 13, 2020, the BOP implemented Phase Two, which suspended social and legal visits, inmate facility transfers, staff travel and training, contractor access, and volunteer visits. Elkton began implementing Phase Two health screening of arriving inmates and staff for COVID-19 symptoms and risk factors on March 22. Additionally, the BOP modified operations to maximize physical distancing, including staggering meal and recreation times, instating grab-and-go meals, and establishing quarantine and isolation procedures. Phase Three involved inventorying the BOP's cleaning, sanitation, and medical supplies. In Phase Four, beginning on March 26, the BOP expanded its initial screening procedures to mandate use of a screening tool and temperature check, and require asymptomatic arrivals to be placed in quarantine for fourteen days and symptomatic arrivals to be isolated until they tested negative for COVID-19 or were cleared by medical staff.

On March 31, the BOP implemented Phase Five. Phase Five required all inmates to be secured to their quarters for a fourteen-day period with limited access to the commissary, laundry, showers, telephone, and other services. The BOP also coordinated with the U.S. Marshals Service to decrease incoming arrivals during this period. Phase Six, ordered on April 13, extended Phase Five through May 18.

In addition to complying with nationwide directives, Elkton also provided inmate and staff education through Frequently Asked Questions bulletins, provided staff training on using Personal Protective Equipment, ordered enhanced cleaning, and took other preventative measures. Elkton also began, but quickly ended, daily temperature screening of inmates. For inmates deemed to have "essential" work details requiring movement throughout the building, such as food service and cleaning orderlies, Elkton implemented enhanced screening before and after assigned work details. Inmates are encouraged to self-monitor and report symptoms and are screened for symptoms and exposure to risk factors.

Elkton avers that "[a]ll inmates have access to sinks, water, and soap at all times" and "inmates may receive new soap weekly" or "upon request." DE 10-1, Dees Decl., PageID 183–84. And staff have consistent access to soap and hand sanitizer. Elkton provided personal protective equipment to staff to be used in designated locations such as quarantine areas and isolation units. Staff and inmates were provided two surgical face masks for daily use.

Elkton's "[m]edical staff determine if COVID-19 testing is necessary based on applicable guidelines and community standards." Id. at 185. Elkton initially received fifty-five testing swabs to test inmates and staff, and as of April 15 had eighteen swabs remaining. In addition, Elkton received an Abbott rapid-testing machine with twenty-five screening test cassettes and hoped to receive twenty-five additional cassettes each week. As of April 22, fifty-nine inmates and forty-six staff members tested positive for COVID-19, and six inmates had died.

Petitioners contend that the BOP's approach and procedures are limited in effectiveness due to the dormitory-style housing at Elkton making it impossible to maintain physical distance and because there are insufficient supplies. Inmates were issued two disposable masks but have no ability to clean them after repeated use. Inmates are also issued a weekly four-ounce bottle of 3-in-1 soap, so inmates frequently run out of soap. There are few shower and bathroom facilities, so inmates are in close proximity to each other when they use those facilities. Additionally, inmates are unable to physically distance when moving within the facility to pick up meals, use phones and computers, or move within the housing unit itself. Moreover, some inmates circulate through the prison as "essential workers" interacting with others outside their housing unit. Several features of the Elkton facilities "heighten risks for exposure, acquisition, transmission, and clinical complications," including: "overcrowding; population density in close confinement; insufficient ventilation; shared toilet, shower, and eating environments; and limits on hygiene and personal protective equipment such as masks and gloves in some facilities." DE 1-4, Goldenson Decl., PageID 61–62; see also DE 1-3, Novisky Decl., PageID 50–51.

C.

Petitioners, on behalf of themselves and current and future inmates at Elkton, allege that their confinement in the midst of the COVID-19 outbreak violates the Eighth Amendment. Specifically, petitioners claim that "there is no set of internal protocols or practices that, in light of the current conditions and population levels, Elkton can use that will prevent further disease and death inside the prison." DE 1, Habeas Pet., PageID 2. Therefore, petitioners sought class certification and a preliminary injunction ordering the BOP to identify and release all inmates ages fifty or older and those that are medically vulnerable. Beyond the release of the initial subclass, petitioners seek specific mitigation efforts to prevent spread of COVID-19 within Elkton.

On April 22, the district court granted petitioners’ motion in part. The district court recognized the measures Elkton put in place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic but found that "Elkton officials fight a losing battle. A losing battle for staff. A losing battle for inmates." DE 22, Order, PageID 353–54. Because of the BOP's limited testing capacity and "the prison's ‘dorm-style’ design," "inmates remain in close proximity" and "COVID-19 is going to continue to spread." Id. at 354. Despite screening measures, "once the virus is inside the prison, as it already is at Elkton, screening...

To continue reading

Request your trial
773 cases
  • Comm. for Pub. Counsel Servs. v. Barnstable Cnty. Sheriff's Office
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • September 28, 2021
    ...the policy was a reasonable response because it set forth safety measures in accordance with the CDC guidelines"); Wilson v. Williams, 961 F.3d 829, 841 (6th Cir. 2020) (prison officials not deliberately indifferent to risks of COVID-19 where their response included "screening for symptoms,......
  • Gonzalez v. Comm'r of Corr.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • April 5, 2022
    ...quotation marks omitted.) Faraday v. Commissioner of Correction , 288 Conn. 326, 338, 952 A.2d 764 (2008) ; see also Wilson v. Williams , 961 F.3d 829, 840 (6th Cir. 2020) (issue of "whether [a prison official's] conduct could constitute deliberate indifference is a mixed question of law an......
  • Carballo v. Barr, Case No.: 2:20-cv-01315-APG-BNW
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • September 30, 2020
    ...the claim should be construed as challenging the fact or extent, rather than the conditions, of the confinement." [ Wilson v. Williams , 961 F.3d 829, 838 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing Adams v. Bradshaw , 644 F.3d 481, 483 (6th Cir. 2011) )]. Petitioner's claims are non-cognizable in a habeas pet......
  • Hope v. Warden York Cnty. Prison
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • August 25, 2020
    ...constitutionality of their conditions of confinement is a matter properly challenged by petition for the writ. Accord Wilson v. Williams , 961 F.3d 829, 838 (6th Cir. 2020). In recognizing the viability of this § 2241 claim we are not creating a garden variety cause of action. As the Suprem......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 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