Gonzalez v. Ahern

Background

Fourteen current and former inmates of Santa Rita Jail brought a putative class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows claims against state or local officials for violating constitutional rights. They alleged violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments based on numerous jail conditions. Their temporary restraining order motion focused on the defendants’ alleged failure to prevent COVID-19 exposure and failure to provide adequate care to inmates who had contracted COVID-19.

The requested order would have required defendants to use personal protective equipment, provide sanitation supplies, consistently sanitize housing areas and shared items, provide soap and masks, give medical and comfort care to infected inmates, and provide accurate and prompt medical and COVID-19 information.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

The defendants argued that the inmates’ claims were barred because they had not completed the available jail grievance process, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court agreed that the amended complaint did not allege that any plaintiff had exhausted administrative remedies concerning the COVID-19-related relief sought. The plaintiffs instead made general arguments that defendants failed to respond to grievances, refused to file them, or maintained a culture of disregarding complaints.

The court nevertheless rejected the exhaustion defense at this stage. Failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, meaning defendants had the burden to show both that an administrative remedy was available and that the inmates did not use it. Because defendants offered no evidence about the availability of administrative remedies, the court held that they had not met that burden.

Likelihood of Success

A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary form of emergency relief. The plaintiffs had to show, among other things, that they were likely to succeed on the merits, likely to suffer irreparable harm without relief, that the balance of equities favored them, and that an injunction served the public interest. The court treated the likelihood-of-success requirement as the most important factor.

The court noted that the amended complaint did not specifically plead a claim about the defendants’ COVID-19 response, although its medical-care claim alleged deliberate indifference to inmates’ medical needs. Because it was unclear whether the plaintiffs were pretrial detainees or convicted prisoners, and because most Santa Rita Jail inmates were pretrial detainees according to the complaint, the court applied the objective deliberate-indifference standard used for pretrial detainees.

Under that standard, plaintiffs must show that the confinement conditions created a substantial risk of serious harm, that the defendant failed to take reasonable available measures despite the obvious risk, and that this failure caused injury. The conduct must be objectively unreasonable—more than negligence but less than subjective intent.

COVID-19 Exposure

The plaintiffs submitted declarations describing problems with cleaning supplies, shared cleaning equipment, unclean tablets and showers, unusable soap, inconsistent mask enforcement, and difficulty exchanging masks. One declarant stated that he was not tested or temperature-checked when transferred into the jail and was placed in an unclean holding cell with several people.

The court acknowledged deficiencies in sanitation, hygiene, masking, and social distancing. It nevertheless found that the jail had adopted a comprehensive COVID-19 plan under the oversight of another federal court in a prior related proceeding. The plan included twice-daily deep cleaning, cleaning materials for housing areas, increased soap distribution, masks for staff, and two types of masks for inmates. The jail had also reduced its inmate population by 800 people since early March 2020.

The court further considered an expert’s assessment that the Sheriff’s Office had a well-organized, science-based COVID-19 plan. The court stated that the jail’s response was not perfect and that its policies were not followed with complete compliance. But it concluded that the jail could not be said to be deliberately disregarding the substantial risk of COVID-19 exposure while actively cooperating with the other court’s oversight and the jointly selected expert.

As of June 24, 2020, the court noted, there were no active inmate COVID-19 cases at the jail; 50 formerly positive inmates had recovered, and eight other people who tested positive had been released. Although the record indicated 32 positive staff cases, the court found no evidence that those infections had caused additional inmate infections. The court therefore held that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on their claim concerning COVID-19 exposure. It also denied their request for an evidentiary hearing on factual disputes about the jail’s response.

Medical Care for Infected Inmates

The plaintiffs submitted declarations from five inmates stating that, after testing positive, they were placed in a filthy solitary cell, received only daily temperature checks and sometimes Tylenol, and were not given an extra blanket or other comfort measures. Two declarants said they continued to experience symptoms after recovering, including bone pain, headaches, and difficulty breathing.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not shown what constitutionally adequate care would have been under the circumstances or how the care provided amounted to deliberate indifference. The court also found that alleged delays in testing or communication about medical conditions and COVID-19 cases had not been shown to rise to the level of reckless disregard. The plaintiffs’ ability to make that showing might have been affected by their lack of medical records, and defendants agreed to provide the named plaintiffs’ records if properly authorized.

Other Injunction Factors and Disposition

Because the plaintiffs did not establish a sufficient likelihood of success, the court held that it could not grant emergency relief based only on irreparable harm, the balance of equities, or the public interest. The court also stated that the jail had made significant efforts under the other court’s oversight and that having two judges manage the same areas of the jail’s pandemic response would not serve the public interest.

Judge Jacquelyn Corley denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. The order also denied the request for an evidentiary hearing and disposed of the motion identified as Docket No. 12.