Court expands when you can bring a habeas action

This inmate was incarcerated at Sullivan Correction Facility. He claimed that his conditions of confinement were detrimental to his health because COVID-19 might have killed him without being released from jail due to his pre-existing health condition. He brought a habeas corpus petition, but the district court dismissed it because what plaintiff instead needed to bring a constitutional claim under Section 1983. The Court of Appeals reverses on that point of law but finds other reasons to dismiss the case.

The case is Diaz v. Kopp, issued July 30. If you care about habeas corpus and Section 1983, then this case is for you. The Court of Appeals took an interest in this case because the lower courts had disagreed on whether habeas is the right vehicle when the inmate seeks immediate from prison due to unconstitutional conditions of confinement, or whether the only procedural route is a Section 1983 claim. 

The Court of Appeals (Calabresi, Nathan and Lohier [in dissent]) notes that "the line between habeas and Section 1983 can be difficult to parse even for seasoned litigators." The Court holds that plaintiff does assert a habeas claim because he claimed it was impossible for inmates like him to practice safe COVID policies due to the nature of the statewide prison environment, and under those policies, he would therefore suffer cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Constitution. As such, his release (attainable through a habeas petition) is necessary. Section 1983 is not the exclusive remedy for cases like this. "We hold only that a claim at the core of habeas does not cease being cognizable under habeas simply because the claim is based on unconstitutional conditions of confinement."

Despite clarifying the law in this area, plaintiff still loses the appeal on the merits: the Court holds that he has not alleged facts that would support his assertions that (1) he was severely at risk of death or long-term disability from COVID, (2) DOCCS was not capable of protecting him from COVID, and (3) the state had created unconstitutional conditions of confinement that can only be remedied by his immediate release from jail. This means the analysis in this case, expanding habeas rights, may not help plaintiff, but it will help other inmates.

Judge Lohier dissents, stating that the case is moot because plaintiff was transferred to a different facility after the state closed Sullivan Correctional Facility. Since plaintiff's claims were specific to Sullivan, where he was held when he filed the petition, and Sullivan is not longer in operation, the case is moot.