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 Eastern District of Virginia, 5 May 2022, No. 7:21-cv-393‎

Case overview

Share
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • envelope
  • print
Country
United States of America
Case ID
No. 7:21-cv-393‎
Decision date
5 May 2022
Deciding body (English)
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
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
Outcome of the decision
Claim inadmissible or rejected
Link to the full text of the decision
Decision_EN available on www.casetext.com

Case analisys

General Summary

Plaintiff, a prisoner in the custody of the Virginia Department of ‎Corrections, filed a complaint against the authorities of the ‎Department of Corrections, requesting:

  1. Injunctive relief ‎concerning policies and practices aimed to prevent the spread of ‎COVID-19;
  2. Injunctive relief concerning the provision of medical ‎care, dental care, and health services generally; and
  3. Injunctive ‎relief in the form of requests for early release. ‎

Defendants argued that the Governor of Virginia is entitled to ‎Eleventh Amendment immunity for official-capacity claims and that ‎Plaintiff did not adequately allege the Governor’s personal ‎involvement or any facts. They have also argued that the history of ‎the Virginia Department of Corrections had issued several COVID-‎‎19 response measures, and that they did not exhibit deliberate ‎indifference to the potential spread of COVID-19 within the ‎correctional facilities. Instead, they took various precautionary ‎measures in response to the pandemic. They also presented records of ‎medical care provided to Plaintiff.‎ The Court denied the three motions for injunctive relief filed by ‎Plaintiff.‎

Facts of the case

Plaintiff contracted COVID-19 while in custody of the Virginia ‎Department of Corrections and alleged that, although he complained ‎of medical symptoms, he was unable to quickly report them to staff ‎because there was no one available to whom to report them. He also ‎did not receive immediate medical attention for those symptoms, ‎which he attributes to chronic understaffing. He has also alleged that ‎Defendants failed to create and implement a policy requiring that ‎suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients be transported by ‎wheelchair or stretcher to the medical area. Consequently, he was ‎forced to walk to the medical area despite having difficulty ‎breathing.‎ Plaintiff claimed that:

  1. Defendants have failed to adequately ‎protect him from contracting COVID-19, due to unsanitary ‎conditions, failures to conduct contact tracing, or to provide personal ‎protective equipment;
  2. Defendants have not provided prompt ‎medical attention once he began experiencing medical symptoms of ‎COVID-19, and although he complained of medical symptoms, he ‎was unable to quickly report them to staff because there was no one ‎available to whom to report them to;
  3. Defendants have not ‎provided immediate medical attention for those symptoms. ‎
Type of measure challenged
National 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 has analyzed the Plaintiff’s claims and has reasoned that:‎ ‎

  1. Preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy that ‎courts should grant only sparingly. The party seeking the ‎preliminary injunction must demonstrate that: (1) he is likely ‎to succeed on the merits at trial; (2) he is likely to suffer ‎irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the ‎balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in ‎the public interest.
  2. The burden is on Plaintiff to show that it is reasonably likely, ‎and not just a speculative possibility, that harm will result ‎absent an injunction, and Plaintiff did not meet his burden. ‎The record reflects that Plaintiff was receiving medical care, ‎including outside medical care. He thus cannot show that he ‎was likely to suffer actual and imminent harm without an ‎injunction.
  3. Release from incarceration, or release to home confinement is ‎not appropriate relief in this case. Plaintiff claimed that he ‎was not seeking “release” but an “enlargement” of custody to ‎a community correctional center or to confinement at his ‎mother’s home. That is a matter of semantics. He was asking ‎for a reduction of his time in custody or an alteration of his ‎sentence so that a portion was served in home confinement. ‎That is not relief the Court can grant in this case, for all the ‎reasons the Court previously stated.
  4. Plaintiff has not shown that he is likely to suffer imminent ‎harm in the absence of an injunction requiring more or ‎different medical care. As noted, he had been receiving ‎treatment and continued to receive treatment, including care ‎by specialists outside.‎
Conclusions of the deciding body

The Court has concluded that, while it is not issuing a ruling on the ‎motions to dismiss at this time, many of Defendants’ arguments ‎against liability are persuasive. Thus, the Court has concluded that, ‎as to the conditions of confinement claims related to the spread of ‎COVID-19, Plaintiff has not shown that he was likely to succeed on ‎the merits of his claims. Therefore, the three requests for injunctive ‎relief were denied.‎

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Fundamental Right(s) involved
  • Prisoners’ rights
  • Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
Prisoner’s rights‎, 8th Amendment, Constitution of the United States of America‎
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 has not used balancing techniques.‎

Author of the case note
Maíra Tito, Research Assistant, NOVA School of Law, Lisbon
Published by Chiara Naddeo on 1 November 2022

More cases from United States of America

  • United States of America, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 16 May 2022, Arc of Iowa et al. vs. Kimberly Reinolds et al
    Area: Use of protection devices
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to bodily integrity; Right to education
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, 18 May 2022, Open MRI and Imaging v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co.
    Area: Healthcare management (Covid related, excluding vaccination)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • United States of America, United States Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 25 May 2022, Allen Gahl v. Aurora Healthcare
    Area: Healthcare management (Covid related, excluding vaccination)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, 5 May 2022, Changizi et al. vs. Department of Health and Human Services
    Area: Health, right to information and freedom of expression
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of expression; Freedom of information
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 13 May 2022, In Re StubHub Refund Litigation
    Area: Consumer protection
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • United States of America, Court of Appeals of California, 15 November 2021, Inns-by-the-sea v. California Mutual Ins. Co., No. D079036
    Area: Consumer protection
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to property
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Load 6 more
List all available cases from United States of America

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Case Index
  3. United States of America, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 5 May 2022, No. 7:21-cv-393‎
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