Barnes v. Ahlman

Barnes v. Ahlman

Opinion

 [*2620]  Application for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court granted, and the district court’s May 26, 2020 order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed pending disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of the petition for writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.

Dissent by: SOTOMAYOR

Dissent

Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan would deny the application.

Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, dissenting from the grant of stay.

 [**1151]  Today, this Court steps in to stay a preliminary injunction requiring Sheriff Don Barnes and Orange County (collectively, the Orange County Jail, or Jail) to implement certain safety measures to protect their inmates during the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic. The injunction’s requirements are not remarkable. In fact, the Jail initially [***2]  claimed that it had already implemented each and every one of them. Yet, apparently disregarding the District Court’s detailed factual findings, its application  [*2621]  of established law, and the fact that the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has twice denied a stay pending its review of the District Court’s order, this Court again intervenes to grant a stay before the Circuit below has heard and decided the case on the merits. See Little v. Reclaim Idaho, ante; at 1, and n. 1 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting from grant of stay) (noting the frequency with which the Court has begun granting such stays). The Jail’s application does not warrant such extraordinary intervention. Indeed, this Court stays the District Court’s preliminary injunction even though the Jail recently reported 15 new cases of COVID-19 in a single week (even with the injunction in place), even though the Jail misrepresented under oath to the District Court the measures it was taking to combat the virus’ spread, and even though the Jail’s central rationale for a stay (that the injunction goes beyond federal guidelines) ignores the lower courts’ conclusion that the Jail’s measures fell “well short” of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Guidelines. 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 20801, 2020 WL 3547960, *4 (CA9, June 17, 2020).

The Orange County Jail currently houses a population [***3]  of over 3,000 pretrial detainees and inmates. At the time of the District Court’s injunction, the Jail had witnessed an increase of more than 300 confirmed COVID-19 cases in a little over a month. The Jail, moreover, was well aware of the risk that the virus could spread rapidly through its congregate population and that addressing that risk would require certain precautionary measures. The District Court found that several organizations, including a group of Orange County Sheriff deputies, had “repeatedly warned . . . of the dangers from COVID-19 in the Jail.” ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96023, 2020 WL 2754938, *12 (CD Cal., May 26, 2020). Indeed, the Jail claims that it sprang into action as soon as the Jail’s first documented case of COVID-19 appeared in March of 2020, collaborating closely with local health officials on preventative measures to contain the virus’ spread. When respondents brought suit, seeking an injunction that would require the Jail to implement a number of safety measures to protect inmates against the virus, the Jail told the District Court that such relief was not needed because it had, “at a minimum, already implemented all of the mitigation efforts” requested. Decl. of Joseph Balicki in No. 8: 20-cv-00835, Doc. 44-10, ¶ 2 (CD Cal., [***4]  May 12, 2020) (Balicki Decl.); see also id., ¶ 9 (“There is not a single ‘mitigation effort’ outlined in Plaintiffs’ Complaint that has not already been implemented in the jails”). The Jail claimed that it had already achieved proper social distancing, provided inmates enough soap for frequent handwashing, and isolated and tested all symptomatic individuals.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.