Money v. Pritzker, Case No. 20-cv-2093

453 F.Supp.3d 1103

James MONEY, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.J.B. PRITZKER, et al., Defendants.

James Money, et al., Petitioners,

v.Rob Jeffreys, in his official capacity as Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Case No. 20-cv-2093

Case No. 20-cv-2094

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

Signed April 10, 2020

Jennifer Soble, Illinois Prison Project, Sheila A. Bedi, Vanessa Del Valle, Roderick And Solange MacArthur Justice Center, Alan S. Mills, Elizabeth N. Mazur, Nicole Rae Schult, Uptown People's Law Center, Amanda C. Antholt, Samantha Reed, Equip For Equality, Sarah Copeland Grady, Loevy & Loevy, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs.

Gopi Kashyap, Katherine Marie Doersch, Illinois Attorney General's Office, Chicago, IL, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER¹

Robert M. Dow, Jr., United States District Judge

In these two cases, Plaintiffs have raised issues of great importance concerning the safety and well-being of inmates in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections during the current national crisis occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic. As myriad citations in both sides' briefs confirm, this issue has occupied all three branches of government in both the federal and state governments in recent weeks. News reports are replete with actions taken by Governors, Attorneys General, state Supreme Courts, and individual trial judges to accelerate the release of inmates and detainees where consistent with overall public safety and to protect those who remain in custodial settings. And rightly so, for the stakes are incredibly high for Plaintiffs, their families, and the public at large. As emphasized by the medical experts whose appearances at daily press briefings rivet the nation, nobody is immune from this virus. However, due to the way in which the virus spreads, individuals living in congregate settings—such as nursing homes and prisons— are especially vulnerable because of difficulty of observing social distancing and recommended hygiene practices in close quarters.

At the outset, it is worth mentioning that Plaintiffs do not ask this Court to order the Illinois Department of Corrections to improve the conditions of confinement. That is, Plaintiffs do not ask to improve the cleanliness of the prisons, or increase the amount of space between inmates at each facility, and so on. Instead, Plaintiffs ask this Court to force the state executive branch to start a process for the potential release of thousands of inmates, through medical furlough or home detention under state law, and do so within one week. The scope of the potential release is sweeping. By their own admission, Plaintiffs want a process to potentially release at least 12,000 inmates, almost one-third of the prison population in Illinois. Defendants submit that they have a process and already are doing most of what Plaintiffs are requesting in their proposed remedial plan—albeit not at the pace Plaintiffs would like to see.

The immediate question before the Court is whether Plaintiffs are entitled to some form of immediate relief—in the form of a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or writs of habeas corpus—imposed by a federal court on state officials. For several reasons explained below, the Court answers that question in the negative and denies the requested relief. Plaintiffs are correct in asserting that the issue of inmate health and safety is deserving of the highest degree of attention. And the record here shows that the authorities in this state are doing just that, with constantly evolving procedures increasing the number of inmates released on a daily basis. But the release of inmates requires a process that gives close attention to detail, for the safety of each inmate, his or her family, and the community at large demands a sensible and individualized release plan—especially during a pandemic. Even if the steps Illinois has taken and the pace with which they are proceeding is not exactly what Plaintiffs want, those steps and that pace plainly pass constitutional muster. Plaintiffs have provided no convincing reason for a federal court to intrude here and now—either to issue a blanket order for the release of thousands of inmates or to superimpose a court-mandated and court-superintended process on the mechanisms currently in place to determine which IDOC inmates can and should be safely removed from prison facilities at this time.

The care of state inmates is entrusted, in the first instance, to state officials, unless the conditions rise to the level of constitutional violations. And state law empowers state officials with the discretion to release individual inmates for medical furlough or home detention, if they deem it appropriate. This Court concludes that Plaintiffs have no likelihood of success on their constitutional claims because the record does not support the notion that the Defendants are showing deliberate indifference to the inmates' plight or discriminating against inmates with disabilities. Even if they had a colorable claim, Plaintiffs' request for release is untenable on a class-wide basis because the possibility of release is an inherently inmate-specific inquiry. Other considerations – such as the public interest from the potential release of thousands of inmates – weigh heavily in the analysis, too. In the end, this Court concludes that Plaintiffs are not entitled to their request for extraordinary relief, even in these extraordinary times.

I. Background²

The named Plaintiffs are ten individuals convicted of a range of felonies, including murder, aggravated kidnapping, and attempted robbery. See Money v. Pritzker , 20-cv-2093 (hereinafter "Pritzker "), [26 at ¶¶ 93-102]. They are currently serving sentences in various Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC") facilities, none of which are in Cook County. See [id. at ¶¶ 8-17.] IDOC operates 28 adult correctional facilities throughout the State of Illinois, houses around 37,000 individuals, and has 11,600 employees. [Id. at ¶ 69.] Plaintiffs have brought two purported class action lawsuits— Pritzker and Money v. Jeffreys (hereinafter "Jeffreys "), 20-cv-2094—seeking release of prisoners from IDOC facilities in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Money v. Pritzker , 20-cv-2093, contains three counts, of which the first two are brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Count I asserts that Defendants are violating the Eighth Amendment through deliberate indifference to a serious risk of harm, while Count II asserts a violation of Plaintiffs' right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Count III asserts violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The complaint names as defendants J.B. Pritzker, Governor of Illinois, and Rob Jeffreys, Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections. Money v. Jeffreys , 20-cv-2094, is a petition for writs of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for relief from custody in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. It names Rob Jeffreys as the respondent. Both suits are purportedly brought on behalf of the named plaintiffs and all similarly situated individuals.

The foundation of each suit is essentially the same: Plaintiffs argue that the prison setting makes them (and other purported class members) especially vulnerable to COVID-19, that the state government's responses to the danger are insufficient or not fast enough or both, and that the only way to solve the problem is moving prisoners out of prisons.

A. Factual Background

COVID-19 is a disease caused by a novel coronavirus that began infecting humans in late 2019. Symptoms include fever, cough, shortness of breath, congestion, sneezing, fatigue, and diarrhea. Pritzker , [1 at ¶ 25.]³ 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.

Currently, there is no vaccine to protect against infection by COVID-19. 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. [1. at ¶ 31.] The CDC recommends avoiding gatherings of more than 10 people. [Id. at ¶ 32.] 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. The World Health Organization has declared COVID-19 to be a global pandemic. [1 at ¶ 20.] On March 9, 2020, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker issued a proclamation declaring a disaster in the State of Illinois. [Id. ] On March 13, 2020, President Trump declared a national emergency. [Id. ] In the United States alone, as of April 1, 2020, there were over 186,000 confirmed cases and over 3,600 deaths. In Illinois, there were over 6,900 confirmed cases and 141 deaths. [Id. at ¶ 21.] On the same date, 52 prisoners in IDOC facilities in two different correctional centers (Stateville and North Lawndale ATC) had confirmed cases of COVID-19, and 25 staff in seven different correctional centers (Stateville NRC, Stateville, Sheridan, North Lawndale ATC, Menard, Joliet Treatment Center, and Crossroads ATC) had confirmed cases. [Id. at ¶ 71.] St. Joseph Hospital in Joliet, Illinois was, at the time the parties filed briefs in these matters, caring for 17 prisoners from...