The federal judge presiding over the class-action lawsuit involving overcrowding at the Vigo County Jail has ordered county officials to provide more information on a COVID-19 outbreak at the jail. In another development, the American Civil Liberties Union is asking for the judge order a status conference on jail population and the COVID-19 pandemic. Tribune Star staff file photo
A federal judge has ordered Vigo County officials to respond to additional questions on a COVID-19 outbreak at the county jail.
And, in another development, the American Civil Liberties Union is asking for a conference before the judge with Vigo County defendants in an existing civil suit. The ACLU also suggests the judge invite other, non-defendant parties that impact the jail's population, such as the county prosecutors, defense attorneys, police and county judiciary.
County officials responded Dec. 18 to the judge's previous order for a status report answering seven questions on the virus outbreak. However, Chief Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson of the US. District Court of Southern District of Indiana wants more information.
In an order issued Monday, Magnus-Stinson ordered answers on or before Dec. 30. The questions:
• What COVID-19 screening, testing or quarantining is done when a new inmate is confined to the VCJ (Vigo County Jail)?
• What screening or testing is performed on the jail staff?
• What did the Indiana State Department of Health recommend, if anything, with respect to the preventing transmission of COVID-19 by jail staff?
• Are the ISDH's recommendations being followed?
The defendants in the federal lawsuit are Sheriff John Plasse; Vigo County Commissioners Brad Anderson, Judy Anderson and Brendan Kearns; and Vigo County Council members Aaron Loudermilk, Jim Mann, Mike Morris, Lisa Spence-Bunnett, Chris Switzer, David Thompson and Vicki Weger.
Those defendants will change when new County Council members and Board of Commissioners are sworn into office in January.
Answers recently submitted
The county, in its response Dec. 18 to the judge's earlier seven questions said, "108 jail inmates have tested positive for Covid-19. Inmates with positive tests are housed on the same floor with access to intercom communication."
In response to a court question on what type of medical attention have those prisoners received and what will be received in the future if changes are being received in treatment protocols?
• The county responded, stating, "Jail nurses spoke to inmates in each cellblock when the outbreak began. Covid-19 symptoms were explained and inmates were instructed to report any symptoms to correctional officers. Inmates reporting or experiencing symptoms are examined by the jail nurse. The jail nurse also interacts with inmates twice a day during medication pass and asks each about illness or symptoms being experienced.
"Inmates are instructed to wear masks when not in their bunks, wash their hands frequently, and not put anything in their mouth they may have been touched by another inmate. Supplies are given to inmates each day to clean their cells. Correctional officers are responsible for cleaning of all hard surfaces outside individual cells. The cleaning of hard surfaces was performed by jail trustees until the outbreak but is now done by jail staff to prevent further spread of the virus.
"No Covid-19 positive inmate has required hospitalization or treatment at an outside facility. The lockdown in effect was recommended by the Indiana Department of Health and is intended to limit the virus to those already infected."
In a court question on specific steps being taken to protect prisoners who are not infected, including where noninfected prisoners are being housed at the jail, the county responded:
• "Inmates testing negative are housed in separate cellblocks from inmates with positive tests. All cellblocks have been locked down at the Health Department’s direction to limit and prevent the virus from spreading further."
In a court question on results of the Board of Health visit to the Jail, its recommendations, and the steps being taken to implement the recommendations, the county responded:
• "The Health Department performed the Covid-19 inmate tests but meetings and conferences with Health Department representatives have been remote. The Health Department recommended the lockdown in effect as well as instructing each inmate to wear a mask when not in their bunk, wash their hands frequently and put nothing in or around their mouth that may have been touched by another inmate.
"The Health Department recommended inmates be checked daily and report symptoms to correctional officers immediately. The jail nurse asks each inmate during medication pass twice a day of Covid-19 related symptoms. Inmates with symptoms are tested and quarantined until obtaining test results."
In a court question on any and all Covid-19 protocols in place at the jail, the county responded:
• "A lockdown of all cellblocks is in effect through December 23. Jail staff will clean surfaces outside cells indefinitely. Correctional officers instruct inmates to wear masks when not in their bunks, wash hands frequently and keep items touched by other inmates away from their face and mouth. Supplies are given to inmates each day to clean their cells and areas are cleaned after recreation for each cellblock."
In a court question on whether or not any prisoners have been transported to hospitals for emergency care or special treatment related to coronavirus or its symptoms, the county responded:
• "No inmates with positive tests or virus related symptoms have required hospitalization for emergency care or special treatment related to Covid-19."
In a court question on all other pertinent issues relating to the disease and the jail’s population, the county responded:
• "The jail will continue to follow the recommendations of the Health Department and follow CDC guidelines to limit and prevent further spread of the virus."
ACLU seeks court conference
Also on Dec. 21, the ACLU of Indiana filed a motion seeking a settlement conference to discuss status of the jail.
Kenneth J. Falk, attorney for the ACLU of Indiana, stated that on Dec. 18, the jail had 260 people confined to the jail. "This means that slightly more than 41% of the Jail’s population has tested positive for the disease," he wrote in the court motion.
"This alarmingly high percentage highlights the difficulty of controlling the disease in a penal setting, a problem that is certainly not unique to the Vigo County Jail."
Falk said the reality of a jail is that social distancing is generally impossible "and it is made more difficult in the Vigo County Jail that is chronically overcrowded."
Falk stated the jail has 267 permanent beds, saying the "Court has noted that correctional experts state, and the Sheriff concedes, that the jail is overcrowded when it is above 80% of its capacity. Although the jail’s population was 260 on December 18, 2020, it rose to 269 on
December 21, 2020, and has averaged slightly more than 287 prisoners a day this month. It was 290 on December 17, 2020," Falk wrote in the motion.
"The fact that the jail population dropped by 30 prisoners in the 24 hours between December 17 and 18, 2020, could indicate that there may be mechanisms to reduce the population of the jail that have not been consistently utilized," Falk wrote.
"It is vitally important that all such mechanisms be explored, discussed, and utilized" given that the court "has already declared, prior to the pandemic, that the conditions at the jail violate both the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. It is unlikely that prisoners in the jail will be offered vaccinations soon; and the new Jail will not be opened until 2022," Falk wrote.
"Class counsel believe that it would be helpful for the Court to order a settlement conference in this matter for counsel and the defendants to discuss in a candid and open discussion all steps being taken to reduce the population of the Jail to attempt to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, the safety of those in the jail, both prisoners and jail staff."
The plaintiffs state that county sheriff "does not have the ability to, on his own, depopulate the jail. Plaintiffs acknowledge that many of the persons who have more control of the jail population than the Sheriff – including the Vigo County prosecutor, defense attorneys, judges of the Vigo County courts with criminal jurisdiction, the Vigo County Probation Department, and the Vigo County Police Department—are not parties to this case.
"Nevertheless, plaintiffs respectfully suggest that it might be helpful to invite representatives of some or all the above entities to engage in the discussion...that may provide options that have not yet been considered that could positively affect the population of the jail and prevent the need for the plaintiffs to seek a prisoner release order."
© 2024 Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc.