Mays v. Dart

Dist. Ct. erred in granting plaintiffs-pre-trial detainees’ request for issuance of preliminary injunction in their section 1983 action, alleging that defendant-Sheriff violated plaintiffs’ due process rights by failing to provide them with reasonably safe living conditions during COVID-19 pandemic. While Dist. Ct. could issue preliminary injunction that covered certain procedures relating to sanitation, diagnostic testing and personal protective equipment, Dist. Ct. could not issue preliminary injunction with respect to plaintiffs’ request to prohibit double celling and group housing/dormitory arrangements to permit adequate social distancing. In this respect, Dist. Ct. failed to consider said requests in view of defendant’s other actions that attempted to address said concerns and failed to give proper deference to defendant’s judgment in adopting policies necessary to ensure safety and security of jail. Moreover, Dist. Ct. cited to incorrect legal standard that required that plaintiff need only show better than negligible chance of success, as opposed to applicable “some likelihood” of success on merits of case, when evaluating request for preliminary injunction as to double celling and group housing concerns.