Marlowe v. LeBlanc et al
Filing
124
RULING AND ORDER...Defendants' Emergency Motion to StayEnforcement of the TRO Pending Appeal (Doc. 117) is DENIED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Emergency Motion forExpedited Consideration of Defendants' Emergency Motion to StayEnforcement (Doc. 118) is DENIED. (PJH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHRISTOPHER MARLOWE
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
JAMES LEBLANC, ET AL.
NO.: 18-63-BAJ-EWD
RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court are Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Stay Enforcement
of the TRO Pending Appeal (Doc. 117) and Emergency Motion for Expedited
Consideration of Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Stay Enforcement (Doc.
118). Plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. 119). Defendants further filed
a Reply Memorandum in Support (Doc. 121). For the reasons stated herein,
Defendants’ Motions (Doc. 117 & 118) are DENIED.
Plaintiff is an inmate who has been diagnosed with diabetes. Currently housed
in the Rayburn Correctional Center, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and/or Emergency Motion for Temporary Release (Doc. 93)
stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiff alleges that the conditions within
the facility violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual
punishment by subjecting him to a risk of contracting COVID-19 which, as a diabetic,
places him at a high risk of suffering potentially deadly effects of the virus. See (Doc.
93). The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion in part and denied it in part. See (Doc. 115).
Finding that Defendants had promulgated protective policies that they do not appear
1
to be implementing to ensure Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights are not violated,
the Court ordered Defendants to submit a Plan to ensure such implementation as
applied to Plaintiff. (Doc. 115, at p. 14).
Defendants now move to stay enforcement of the Court’s Order. See (Doc. 117).
In support, Defendants rely heavily on the recently entered opinion in Valentine v.
Collier, No. 20-20207, 2020 WL 1934431 (5th Cir. Apr. 22, 2020), where a preliminary
injunction, entered against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) in a
matter involving a prison system’s effort to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, was
stayed. (Doc. 117, at p. 3). The circumstances in Valentine are so similar to the
instant case, Defendants argue, that a stay should likewise be entered here. Id.
The Court disagrees. Two significant factors distinguish the instant case from
Valentine, and each mandate that the stay request be denied. First, unlike Valentine,
this Court has not ordered Defendants to modify their own laws, to comply with
existing state laws or to implement any precautionary measures aimed at ensuring
the Plaintiff’s health and safety. In Valentine, the district court imposed numerous
measures that, according to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
went well beyond the TDCJ’s own policies. In stark contrast, the Court in this matter
merely required “that Defendants shall submit to the Court a Plan to ensure
implementation…as recommended by the Center for Disease Control and other public
health authorities…for the protection of the Plaintiff.” (Doc. 115, at p. 14). To the
extent the Louisiana Department of Corrections has promulgated policies for the
implementation of precautionary measures that are consistent with public health
2
authorities, including the Louisiana Department of Health, it need only report such
when it submits the Plan.
Although Defendants correctly point out that the states have an interest in
enforcing their own laws and the Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from
enjoining state facilities to follow state law, the Court did not order Defendants to do
so. Valentine, at *4. Defendants’ interests in enforcing state law does not grant
permission to operate within a black box that may facilitate violations of federal law,
including the Eighth Amendment. Rather than impose any procedures or
requirements upon Defendants that override their own policies, the Court has simply
mandated that Defendants provide a Plan to satisfy the Court that Defendants are
in fact taking steps to ensure Plaintiff’s safety during the COVID-19 crisis. Plaintiff
raised genuine concerns over the state of affairs within Rayburn. The Court simply
seeks satisfaction that Defendants are not in violation of federal law with respect to
Plaintiff’s rights.1
Second, Defendants rely on the portion of Valentine that held that the
mandatory exhaustion of administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act remained in place because relief was still available, even if “not as swift[]
as Plaintiffs would like.” Id. Again, unlike in Valentine, Plaintiff has adequately
The Court notes that failure to implement policies may entitle Plaintiff to relief under federal law.
Johnson v. Epps, 479 F. App’x 583, 590 (5th Cir. 2012). Other circuits have also acknowledged this
general truth. See Tafoya v. Salazar, 516 F.3d 912, 918–19, 922 (10th Cir.2008) (“knowing failure to
enforce policies necessary to the safety of inmates may rise to the level of deliberate indifference”);
Cash v. County of Erie, 654 F.3d 324, 334–38 (2d Cir.2011) (finding sufficient evidence to support a
jury finding of deliberate indifference where sheriff failed to implement policy designed to prevent
sexual assault).
1
3
alleged that the resolution of this matter through the administrative grievance
process is not available here. Plaintiff has indicated concern over the availability of
administrative remedies from the beginning, though he did eventually file a request
to initiate an Administrative Remedy Procedure (ARP). (Doc. 102–2, at p. 2). Warden
Tanner testified that such administrative proceedings, if deemed an emergency,
would be processed within approximately 48-hours. (Doc. 110–1, at p. 45). However,
in opposition to the instant Motion, Plaintiff has attached official proclamations
indicating that the Governor of Louisiana and Defendant LeBlanc have suspended
deadlines regarding the administrative regulations, which have resulted in the
unavailability of the grievance processes. (Doc. 119–2, 119–3). In fact, the ARP filed
by the Plaintiff in this matter has been pending since April 7, 2020, well beyond the
48-hour period promised by officials at Rayburn. Defendants have provided nothing
to suggest that the ARP will be administratively adjudicated in the near term, and
given the suspension of the ARP process by DOC officials, this avenue of relief is
simply unavailable to Plaintiff. As such, the Court cannot conclude as a matter of
law that administrative remedies are in fact available to Plaintiff at this time,
rendering them impossible to exhaust.
Lastly and critically, the Court finds that Defendants have not satisfied the
factors required to impose a stay. This Circuit evaluates four factors when deciding
whether to stay an injunction pending appeal, with priority given to the first two: (1)
whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on
the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3)
4
whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in
the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies. Barber v. Bryant, 833 F.3d 510,
511 (5th Cir. 2016). The Court is not persuaded that Defendants, who largely rely on
the same arguments advanced when the Court issued its Ruling, coupled with the
distinguishable facts in Valentine, have made a strong showing that they are likely
to succeed on the merits. Secondly, Defendants have failed to demonstrate that being
required to submit a plan as contemplated in the Court’s Order (Doc. 115) will
irreparably injure them. To round out the factors, Defendants have not demonstrated
that any other parties will be injured absent a stay, and the public interest supports
the protection of Eighth Amendment rights. As such, the Court’s Ruling must stand.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Stay
Enforcement of the TRO Pending Appeal (Doc. 117) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Emergency Motion for
Expedited Consideration of Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Stay
Enforcement (Doc. 118) is DENIED.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 27th day of April, 2020
_______________________________________
JUDGE BRIAN A. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?