Skip to main content
Social Media
  • twitter
  • linkedin
Home
  • About the project
    • About the project
    • Partnerships and Collaborators
    • Coordination Unit
    • Project Management Team
    • International Network of Judges and Legal Scholars
    • Research assistants
  • Case Law Database
    • Case index
    • Database charts
  • News
    • News and announcements
    • Press newsroom
  • Resources
    • Working papers and other resources
    • Media kit
  • Contacts
Back to the previous page

United States of America, United States District Court for the District of Oregon, 21 March 2022, No. 2:21-cv-00493-SB

Case overview

Share
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • envelope
  • print
Country
United States of America
Case ID
No. 2:21-cv-00493-SB
Decision date
21 March 2022
Deciding body (English)
United States District Court for the District of Oregon
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
Civil Court
Type of jurisdiction
Single jurisdiction system
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Local Court
Instance
1st Instance
Area
Health law, detention and prison law
Vulnerability groups
Inmates
Outcome of the decision
Claim partially upheld
Link to the full text of the decision
Decision_EN available on www.casetext.com

Case analisys

General Summary

The Plaintiff, an inmate housed at Two Rivers Correctional ‎Institution, filed action against several Oregon Department of ‎Corrections officials alleging that they acted with deliberate ‎indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm in violation of the ‎Eighth Amendment by failing consistently to comply with the use of ‎face mask policy. The Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary ‎injunction, asking the Court to order Defendants to comply with the ‎mask policy. ‎ The Court reasoned that in order for the injunction to succeed, the ‎Plaintiff "must demonstrate (1) that it was likely to succeed on the ‎merits, (2) that he was likely to suffer irreparable harm in the ‎absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tipped ‎in his favor, and (4) that an injunction was in the public ‎interest." The Court concluded that the elements above were ‎present in the case and partially granted injunctive relief, stating ‎that the “order will expire in ninety (90) days unless extended, ‎superseded, or vacated by a subsequent order.”‎

Facts of the case

The Plaintiff was an immunocompromised inmate, therefore the ‎severe risk of being infected with Covid-19 could cause irreparable ‎harm. ‎

Type of measure challenged
Local government measure
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Injunctive relief
Individual / collective enforcement
Individual action brought by one or more individuals or legal persons exclusively in their own interest.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Private individual
  • Defendant(s)
    Public
Type of procedure
Ordinary procedures
Reasoning of the deciding body

The Court analyzed the request for a preliminary injunction and ‎reasoned that: ‎ ‎
1)‎ The Prison Litigation Reform Act imposed additional ‎restrictions on a court's ability to grant injunctive relief. Any ‎such "[1] relief must be narrowly drawn, [2] extend no further ‎than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires ‎preliminary relief, and [3] be the least intrusive means ‎necessary to correct the harm."‎ ‎
2)‎ Regarding the likelihood of success, the Court reasoned ‎that the Plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence, in the ‎form of his own sworn declaration and those of others, that ‎Defendants had consistently failed to comply with and ‎enforce mask policy at the facility. ‎
‎3)‎ Regarding the likelihood of irreparable harm, the Court ‎found that the Plaintiff had demonstrated a likelihood of ‎irreparable harm, both in light of the serious health ‎consequences of the COVID-19 virus and because he was ‎immunocompromised. ‎ ‎
4)‎ Regarding the balance of equity and the public interest, the ‎Court argued that: “t here can be no serious dispute two ‎years into the COVID-19 pandemic that the public interest is ‎served by protecting individuals from COVID-19, both in and ‎out of custody. On the other hand, "[s]tates have a strong ‎interest in the administration of their prisons[,]" and the ‎Supreme Court has cautioned "that federal courts must tread ‎lightly when it comes to questions of managing prisons, ‎particularly state prisons.” Balancing the equities and ‎evaluating the public interest here, the Court reasoned that ‎an order requiring Defendants to merely comply with their ‎own mask policy was equitable on balance, in the public ‎interest, and not an inappropriate intrusion in prison ‎administration.‎

Implementation of the ruling

The Court granted the Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary ‎injunction and ordered Defendants to comply with the use of face ‎mask policy, but stated that the “order will expire in ninety (90) ‎days unless extended, superseded, or vacated by a subsequent order.”‎

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Fundamental Right(s) involved
Prisoners’ rights
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
Conditions of confinement, Eighth Amendment, US Constitution
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
Health v. prisoner’s rights
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)

The Court balanced the public interest in containing the Covid-19 ‎pandemic against the Prison Litigation Reform Act and found that ‎granting injunctive relief would not be an intrusive measure and ‎would be of greater public interest.‎

Author of the case note
Maíra Tito, Research Assistant, NOVA School of Law, Lisbon
Published by Chiara Naddeo on 18 June 2022

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Case Index
  3. United States of America, United States District Court for the District of Oregon, 21 March 2022, No. 2:21-cv-00493-SB
home

This project and its database have been made possible with the financial support from the World Health Organization

www.covid19litigation.org is run and maintained by the University of Trento
Via Calepina 14, I-38122 Trento (Italy) — P. Iva/C.F. IT-00340520220

Social Media Links

  • twitter
  • linkedin

Terms of use

www.covid19litigation.org
Site purpose

This site is for informational use only. Case law summaries are not legal advices and may not be relied on as such. Anyone seeking for legal advice should obtain appropriate legal counsel.

Site operation

This site may not be fully up-to-date (for example, cases may be reviewed, reversed, or appealed). This site may be taken down at any time without notice. The case law summaries provided on this site may be incomplete or outdated.

Copyright

Any files provided on this site were taken from a source that is, to the University of Trento and its Partners' best knowledge, from a freely available public resource, however, any further use of such files is at the user’s responsibility.

Responsibility

This site is maintained by the University of Trento, with financial support from the World Health Organization (WHO). The University of Trento will not be responsible for any use of the site.

No endorsement

Inclusion of a case on the website does not necessarily involve a view, position, or endorsement by the University of Trento or the WHO, including with respect to any legal matter. The site is not a product of WHO and does not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the WHO.

User account menu

  • Log in

Footer menu

  • Contacts
  • Terms of use
  • Privacy
  • Cookies