TEXAS DEPARTMENT of CRIMINAL JUSTICE, Respondents
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
No. 19A________ In the Supreme Court of the United States __________ LADDY CURTIS VALENTINE AND RICHARD ELVIN KING, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, Applicants, v. BRYAN COLLIER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, ROBERT HERRERA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, AND THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, Respondents. __________ EMERGENCY APPLICATION TO JUSTICE ALITO TO VACATE STAY PENDING APPEAL OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ENTERED BY THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT __________ JEFF EDWARDS JOHN R. KEVILLE SCOTT MEDLOCK DENISE U. SCOFIELD MICHAEL SINGLEY MICHAEL T. MURPHY DAVID JAMES BRANDON W. DUKE The Edwards Law Firm Counsel of Record The Haehnel Building BENJAMIN D. WILLIAMS 1101 East 11th Street ROBERT L. GREEN Austin, Texas 78702 CORINNE STONE HOCKMAN (512) 623-7727 Winston & Strawn LLP 800 Capitol Street, Suite 2400 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 651-2600 [email protected] Counsel for Applicants TABLE OF CONTENTS Page STATEMENT ................................................................................................................. 2 REASONS TO VACATE THE STAY ............................................................................ 6 I. The Stay Imposes a Risk of Serious and Irreparable Harm to Plaintiffs ......... 7 II. The Stay Panel’s Application of the Stay Factors Was Demonstrably Wrong .................................................................................................................. 8 A. The Stay Panel Applied Incorrect Standards and Ignored the District Court’s Fact Findings to Conclude that Defendants Are Likely to Prevail on Appeal ...................................................................... 9 1. The Stay Panel Improperly Overruled the District Court’s Fact Findings on Harm Without Finding Clear Error ............... 10 2. The Stay Panel Improperly Overruled the District Court’s Fact Findings on Deliberate Indifference ................................... 14 B. The Stay Panel Overruled the District Court’s Fact Findings on the Remaining Elements Despite Not Finding Them Clearly Erroneous ................................................................................................ 16 1. The District Court’s Finding of Irreparable Harm to Plaintiffs Was Not Clearly Erroneous ........................................ 17 2. Defendants Put Forward No Evidence of Actual Harm to Factor into the Balance of Equities ............................................ 18 3. The Injunction Was Not Against the Public Interest ................ 20 C. Defendants’ Unproven PLRA Defense Does Not Justify a Stay .......... 21 1. The Stay Panel Applied the Wrong Standard by Improperly Shifting the Burden to Plaintiffs ............................. 21 2. The District Court’s Injunction Was Narrowly Tailored Based on the Record Before It ..................................................... 23 III. The Court Would Likely Grant Review............................................................ 24 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 25 i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Abrams v. Chapman, Case No. 2:20-cv-11053 (E.D. Mich. filed Apr. 29, 2020) ...................................... 25 Atchafalaya Basinkeeper v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 894 F.3d 692 (5th Cir. 2018) .............................................................................. 9, 16 Coleman v. Paccar Inc., 424 U.S. 1301 (1976) ................................................................................................ 6 Cullors v. County of Los Angles, Case No. 2:20-cv-03760 (C.D. Cal. filed Apr. 24, 2020) ......................................... 25 Enter. Int’l, Inc. v. Corporacion Estatal Petrolera Ecuatoriana, 762 F.2d 464 (5th Cir. 1985) ................................................................................ 7, 9 Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 842 (1994) .............................................................................. 10, 14, 15, 16 Fernandez-Rodriguez v. Licon-Vitale, Case No. 1:20-cv-03315 (S.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 28, 2020) ......................................... 25 Fletcher v. Menard Corr. Ctr., 623 F.3d 1171 (7th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................ 23 Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 11, 12 Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993) .................................................................................................. 23 Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (1982) .......................................................................................... 13, 20 Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) ................................................................................................ 22 June Med. Servs., L.L.C. v. Gee, 136 S. Ct. 1354 (2016) .............................................................................................. 6 Martinez-Brooks v. Easter, Case No. 3:20-cv-00569 (D. Conn. filed Apr. 27, 2020) ......................................... 25 ii Mays v. Dart, Case No. 1:20-cv-02134 (N.D. Ill. filed Apr. 3, 2020) ............................................ 25 Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989) ................................................................................................ 25 Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) .................................................................................................. 8 Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) ...........................................................................................passim Reynolds v. Int’l Amateur Athletic Fed’n, 505 U.S. 1301 (1992) ................................................................................................ 6 Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016) ...................................................................................... 22, 23 Simms v. District of Columbia, 872 F. Supp. 2d 90 (D.D.C. 2012) .......................................................................... 21 Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) .................................................................................................. 20 W. Airlines v. Teamsters, 480 U.S. 1301 (1987) .......................................................................................passim Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) ................................................................................................ 14 Statutes 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2) .................................................................................................. 24 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ........................................................................................................... 14 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) ..................................................................................................... 22 Other Authorities Sup. Ct. R. 10 ............................................................................................................... 25 iii To the Honorable Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and Circuit Justice for the Fifth Circuit: Plaintiffs-Applicants, two inmates at a geriatric state prison unit in Texas, filed the underlying action to require prison officials to provide safeguards against further COVID-19 contamination in a facility that has already experienced at least one COVID-19 related death. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found that Plaintiffs made a sufficient showing of deliberate indifference to support a narrowly tailored preliminary injunction necessary to preserve the status quo and protect the lives and health of these elderly inmates. On April 22, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stayed that preliminary injunction over Plaintiffs’ objection and in contravention of the district court’s factual findings. The COVID-19 pandemic is a serious public health crisis shown to spread in confined conditions at an alarming rate. Every day that the state refuses to implement the measures set forth in the injunction exposes Plaintiffs to serious and irreparable harm from COVID-19. This Court’s intervention is urgently needed. Applicants respectfully request that the Fifth Circuit’s stay be vacated. 1 STATEMENT While most of the country observes social distancing and remains in their homes to keep safe from COVID-19, one highly at-risk population for contraction of the virus has been all but forgotten: those in our Nation’s prisons. This case concerns the most basic human right—the ability to protect oneself from grave danger. Plaintiffs Laddy Valentine (age 69) and Richard King (age 73) are elderly inmates in the Pack Unit, a prison in Grimes County, Texas for geriatric prisoners— a high-risk population for COVID-19. Plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging violations of their and similarly situated inmates’ constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment and statutory rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ex. 5, Complaint. Plaintiffs allege their rights are violated by Defendants’ willful and deliberately indifferent and discriminatory conduct in failing to protect inmates housed in the Pack Unit who face severe illness or death from exposure to COVID- 19. Id. 1. According to the complaint, Defendants are subjectively aware and “act with deliberate indifference to the serious risk COVID-19 poses to the inmates in their custody and care, including the numerous medically