United States of America, United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, 2 May 2022, Johnny McLean v. Cook et al
Case overview
Country
Case ID
Decision date
Deciding body (English)
Type of body
Type of Court (material scope)
Type of jurisdiction
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Instance
Area
Vulnerability groups
Outcome of the decision
Link to the full text of the decision
General Summary
The Plaintiff was a prisoner in the custody of the Connecticut Department of Corrections. He filed a complaint against several prison officials, claiming that he contracted Covid-19 because of the defendants’ deliberate indifference to his health and safety. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by exposing him to a substantial risk of contracting Covid-19. In this initial review, the Court allowed the Plaintiff’s claims to go forward against one of the four defendants but dismissed his claims against the other three for lack of factual allegations to plausibly show their personal involvement in the denial of the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
Facts of the case
The plaintiff complained about his treatment at three different prisons. The first was the Radgowski Correctional Center. He arrived there in May 2020. When he arrived, he said, Covid-19 was rampant and he claimed that the warden failed to protect him and the other inmates from the disease: “[s]leeping areas were not being clean[ed]”; inmates were packed together and not given masks; asymptomatic infected inmates were not isolated; and the Plaintiff was forced to stay in a room that had not been cleaned since a sick inmate had left it. The plaintiff alleged that for over a month, he “begged” the warden to be transferred or at least for a mask but “was ignored completely.” Much of this continued, the plaintiff alleged, until he was moved to the Corrigan Correctional Institution in June 2020. Again, he asserted, the warden refused to protect him from Covid-19, denied him cleaning supplies to disinfect his cell, failed to screen new inmates for the disease, and refused to let him take a shower for multiple days at a time. At both “Radgowski and Corrigan,” he alleged, he “observed officers and staff members who stated they had low fevers” and “were positive with Covid-19” but who “were still allowed to work” so that they could get overtime pay. Because of these failings, the plaintiff claimed he contracted Covid-19. For three weeks, he lost his senses of smell, taste, and hearing in his left ear; he had trouble sleeping; and suffered migraines and memory loss. Still, he said, the medical staff would “only check [his] temperature and blood pressure” and then send him back to his cell without a Covid-19 test. In July, the plaintiff was moved to a third prison: the Walker Reception Center. At first, his symptoms persisted and he was denied a Covid-19 test. But eventually, the symptoms cleared up, he took a Covid-19 test, and it came back negative.
Type of measure challenged
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Individual / collective enforcement
Nature of the parties
Claimant(s)
Private individualDefendant(s)
Public
Type of procedure
Reasoning of the deciding body
The Court analyzed the plaintiff’s claims and reasoned that:
- The Supreme Court has set forth a threshold “plausibility” pleading standard for courts to evaluate the adequacy of allegations in Federal Court complaints. A complaint must allege enough facts—as distinct from legal conclusions—that give rise to plausible grounds for relief.
- The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment.” The Supreme Court has long recognized that prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment if they are deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm or to the serious medical needs of a sentenced prisoner.
- The allegations that the warden was aware of the unsafe conditions and did not take steps to protect inmates during an outbreak were sufficient for initial pleading purposes to allege that he acted recklessly despite knowing the substantial risk that Covid-19 posed to inmates.
- As for the remaining defendants, the plaintiff sought to hold them liable in their supervisory capacity but did not allege enough facts to show their culpable personal involvement with respect to his health and safety.
Conclusions of the deciding body
The Court concluded that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims could proceed against one defendant in his individual capacity. The claims against the other defendants were dismissed.
Fundamental Right(s) involved
- Prisoners’ rights
- Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
