Inmate may sue jail for contracting COVID-19

COVID-19 cases will be with us for years to come. This case involves an inmate who alleges he was placed in a jail block even though jail officials knew inmates in that block had COVID-19 and disregarded medical advice in placing him there. Does plaintiff have a case?

The case is Nazario v. Thibeault, a summary order issued on October 31. Plaintiff sues under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and inhumane treatment of inmates. The following is a summary of plaintiff's factual allegations:

Nazario claims, among other things, that Thibeault knew there were inmates in E-Block exhibiting Covid-19 symptoms and disregarded medical advice by transferring him there. Therefore, we assume that the district court correctly concluded that a reasonable jury could find that Osborn failed to follow Department of Correction (“DOC”) Covid-19 policies, including policies regarding the quarantine of inmates with Covid-19 housed in E-Block; that Thibeault knew of Covid-19 positive and/or symptomatic inmates in E-Block and disregarded the risk associated with Nazario’s transfer there; and that Thibeault failed to provide Nazario with personal protective equipment (“PPE”) knowing that Nazario was at  heightened risk of contracting Covid-19 because he lacked the necessary PPE to perform his laundry job.

In short, plaintiff was placed at risk of contracting COVID-19 because defendant ignored medical advice and transferred him to a risky part of the jail. The decision is not clear whether plaintiff actually got COVID, but the district court ruling gives us the details:

While living in E-block, Plaintiff contracted COVID-19. As a result, he was transferred to F-Block on April 29, 2020. The next day, he was transferred to Northern, where his condition deteriorated, and he was put on a breathing machine.  On his first day at Northern, Plaintiff was transferred to UCONN Medical Center, where his condition continued to deteriorate. He remained at UCONN Medical Center for a week as he recovered from COVID-19 and was then transferred back to Northern, where he experienced “after-effects of COVID-19,” including damage to his heart and circulatory system. On May 13, 2020, Plaintiff had a heart attack at Northern, leading paramedics to transport him to the ICU at Hartford Hospital, where he underwent multiple stent procedures. At the hospital, Plaintiff's heart stopped twice, and hospital staff revived him both times. Due to his heart attack, Plaintiff had a pacemaker permanently implanted in his chest.

While living in E-block, Plaintiff contracted COVID-19. [Dkt. 27-2 (Add. Mat. Facts) ¶ 23; Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 32–34]. As a result, he was transferred to F-Block on April 29, 2020. [Dkt. 27-2 ¶ 29]. The next day, he was transferred to Northern, where his condition deteriorated, and he was put on a breathing machine. ([Dkt. 27-2 (Add. Mat. Facts) ¶¶ 23–24; Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 34–35].¹² On his first day at Northern, Plaintiff was transferred to UCONN Medical Center, where his condition continued to deteriorate. [Dkt. 27-2 (Add. Mat. Facts) ¶ 24; Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 36–37].¹³ He remained at UCONN Medical Center for a week as he recovered from COVID-19 and was then transferred back to Northern, where he experienced “after-effects of COVID-19,” including damage to his heart and circulatory system. [Dkt. 27-2 (Add. Mat. Facts) ¶ 24; Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 38–41.])¹⁴ On May 13, 2020, Plaintiff had a heart attack at Northern, leading paramedics to transport him to the ICU at Hartford Hospital, where he underwent multiple stent procedures. [Dkt. 27-2 (Add. Mat. Facts) ¶ 24; Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 42–44]. At the hospital, Plaintiff's heart stopped twice, and hospital staff revived him both times. [Id.]. Due to his heart attack, Plaintiff had a pacemaker permanently implanted in his chest.

Nazario v. Thibeault, No. 3:21-CV-216-VLB, 2022 WL 2358504, at *3 (D. Conn. June 30, 2022)

The district court denied the State's summary judgment motion, ruling that disputed facts preclude any qualified immunity defense as a matter of law. This immunity gives State officials the benefit of the doubt -- and relieves them of any litigation burdens -- if the defendant did not violate clearly-established law. Many cases are dismissed on qualified immunity grounds, and the defendant may ultimately enjoy that immunity once all the evidence is presented at trial, but the district court and Court of Appeals hold that if the jury credits plaintiff's version of the facts, it may find the defendant, a deputy warden, violated clearly-established law under the Eighth Amendment. So the lawsuit will proceed to trial unless the parties settle.

The Court of Appeals does not squarely address this, but what is the clearly-established law prohibiting jail officials from placing an inmate in a jail location that poses a COVID-19 risk? The law is clear that you cannot demonstrate deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. But the qualified immunity analysis usually requires a case on point from the Court of Appeals with facts that resemble this case. I don't think the Second Circuit has applied the Eighth Amendment in the context of jailhouse COVID-19 decisionmaking. The district court did address this issue, noting that "The Second Circuit has 'held that correctional officials have an affirmative obligation to protect inmates from infectious disease.'” The citation for this is Jolly v. Coughlin. 76 F.3d 468, 477 (2d Cir. 1996). Jolly is a pre-COVID case, but it is close enough to plaintiff's case that he can bring this lawsuit.