The conditions at the federal women's prison in Waseca, Minn., where COVID-19 has infected at least 70% of the inmates, did not rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment, a U.S. magistrate judge ruled Friday.
Magistrate Leo Brisbois denied a motion sought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota for a temporary restraining order. He also denied a motion to release 14 inmates to home confinement, saying the federal court lacks the authority to take such action.
Brisbois' decision is not the final word. It comes in the form of a recommendation to U.S. District Judge Michael Davis, who must weigh the arguments and issue a decision.
Under court procedures, the inmates can file an objection within 14 days. Teresa Nelson, legal director of the state ACLU, said there are eight attorneys representing the prisoners, and they will meet to decide whether to recommend to their clients whether an objection should be filed.
Brisbois also dismissed the ACLU's request for a temporary restraining order that would set in motion the inmates' release. The ACLU is seeking to have the suit declared a class action which could allow other prisoners to also be released.
The suit argued that the Waseca prison should not have taken in new prisoners transferred from a jail in Oklahoma where COVID-19 had been widespread. The virus then spread through the prison "like wildfire" during September, and Waseca authorities were unprepared, ignoring social distancing protocols, proper masking and cleaning, and allowed very sick inmates to languish without proper care, the ACLU alleged.
For the most part, Brisbois sided with the account laid out by prison officials, who contended they took decisive action to clamp down on the pandemic. He found unpersuasive the anecdotal information contained in more than 300 pages of documents submitted by the ACLU.
"Even if assuming for the sake of argument that [prison officials'] conduct demonstrates gross negligence and medical malpractice, under controlling Eighth Circuit precedent this still cannot support a claim of cruel and unusual punishment," Brisbois wrote.