SF Federal Judge Denies COVID-19 Jailbreak; State Conducting Its Own

by · Published · Updated

The good news is that Federal District Judge Jon Tigar today denied the motion of California inmates to force the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to “ ‘develop a plan to manage and prevent the further spread of COVID-19 in California state prisons’ that includes ‘reduc[ing] population levels to safe and sustainable levels in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.’ ” The bad news is that the state is already reducing population levels on its own by refusing new admissions, pushing the problem back on county jails.

From the order (footnotes omitted, italics added):

Plaintiffs in this case are the inmates of the California state prison system. They now ask the Court to order the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) to “develop a plan to manage and prevent the further spread of COVID-19 in California state prisons” that includes “reduc[ing] population levels to safe and sustainable levels in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.” ECF No. 3266 at 1–2. The State responds that it already has such a plan—one that includes the release of thousands of inmates to reduce the prison population, the cessation of visitation and intake of new prisoners, sharp reductions in inmate transfers to avoid the spread of contagion, detailed protocols for managing symptomatic inmates and staff, increased disinfection efforts, and adjustments to housing and prisoner activities to increase physical distancing. Further, the State asserts that it continues to consider additional measures and to adjust its response to the pandemic based on evolving conditions.

This Court can only order relief if it first finds the violation of a federal right. That, in turn, requires the Court to find that Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to inmate health or safety. The COVID-19 pandemic is “unprecedented,” Coleman v. Newsom, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2020 WL 1675775, at *1 (E.D. Cal./N.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2020), and no one questions that it poses a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiffs. But given the numerous and significant measures the State of California has taken and continues to take in response to COVID-19, the Court cannot conclude that State officials have been deliberately indifferent. Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ motion.

*      *      *

Since March 11, 2020, Defendants have reduced the population by 3,973 inmates. ECF No. 3213 at 2 (114,318 inmates as of March 11, 2020); CDCR, Weekly Report of Population (Apr. 15, 2020), https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/research/wp-content/uploads/sites/174/2020/04/Tpop1d200415.pdf (110,345 inmates as of April 15, 2020). This number reflects the completion of the early release of 3,500 inmates with 60 days or fewer remaining on their sentences as of March 30, 2020. ECF No. 3274 ¶ 7 (Diaz Decl.). The CDCR Secretary also intends to extend the suspension of intake for another 30 days. Id. ¶ 6. “In a typical month, CDCR accepts approximately 3,000 new inmates from county jails or other jurisdictions,” id. ¶ 5, so the suspension of intake for 60 days is expected to result in approximately 6,000 inmates not entering the prison system. These population reductions are not insignificant, and they will allow increased physical distancing among inmates who remain in the institutions.

The decision cited in the second paragraph is the three-judge court decision noted in this post.

“These population reductions are not insignificant” is an understatement. Further reductions in a state which has already watered down its criminal law too far is a clear and present danger to law-abiding people. Refusing new admissions merely pushes the problem back to the county jails, which are facing their own problems. The hydraulic pressure will inevitably mean more criminals on the street who should be behind bars, which in turn inevitably means more innocent people robbed, raped, or murdered in crimes that could have and should have been prevented.

As testing becomes available, prisons can be made COVID-19-free zones by testing all staff and inmates, both existing and incoming, allowing no one else in, and isolating those who test positive until they have recovered. Releases can and should be eliminated as soon as that is feasible.

At that point, instead of exacerbating the problems of the county jails, the state prisons can and should relieve them by taking additional convicted felons. That could be done with a partial rollback of the Realignment bill. That would require urgency legislation. The urgency certainly exists, but getting such a bill through the present California Legislature would be difficult.