Inmates, prison settle virus lawsuit

DANBURY — Inmates and FCI Danbury have reached a settlement in a class action federal lawsuit that claimed the facility had failed to protect the prisoners from the coronavirus.

The settlement reached Monday builds upon a judge’s previous order that the prison identify inmates at the prison with health conditions that may put them at risk for the virus.

“The key parts of the settlement are Bureau of Prison’s promise to continue to identify people who are medically vulnerable and a speedy consideration of release to those individuals who are medically vulnerable,” said Marisol Orihuela, clinical associate professor of law at Yale Law School, who was among the attorneys representing the inmates.

The lawsuit, filed at the end of April by attorneys from Yale Law School, a Stamford law firm and Quinnipiac University School of Law, had described poor conditions at the low-security prison off of Pembroke Road

U.S. Attorney John H. Durham, whose office represented the prison, said FCI has done a good job stopping the spread of the virus.

“I commend the Bureau of Prisons and FCI Danbury personnel in working extremely hard to ensure the safety of both inmates and BOP personnel safe during the COVID-19 pandemic,” he said in a statement. “Due to their efforts, FCI Danbury has managed to contain the spread of COVID-19 at the Institution and maintained a zero infection rate over the last month.”

The number of cases in the prison has dropped sharply to just one. In early May, more than 60 inmates and over 50 staff members had tested positive for the virus, with one inmate dying, U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy have said.

The latest confirmed case stems from a newly admitted inmate who tested positive while in quarantine, Durham said.

“This quarantine and testing is mandatory for all inmates, whether they are new or just returning from the community, to protect the general population,” he said. “The settlement agreement reached in this litigation preserves these best practices already being employed at FCI Danbury and guarantees that the home confinement review process established by the BOP and the Attorney General continues.”

Orihuela said she is glad the rate of infection at the prison has slowed. But she is concerned about a second wave.

“Even without a tragic situation at the facility, it is simply not safe in congregate settings, such as prisons, to have people who are at high risk for severe illness or death from COVID,” she said.

The prison must conduct mass testing and contract tracing, as well as provide hygienic materials to guards and inmates, Orihuela said.

Durham promised in a letter to the attorneys that the prison would take various precautions, including daily temperature checks of inmates and daily wellness checks in quarantine and isolation spaces. Inmates with symptoms will be tested and seen by a doctor or nurse on the same day the symptoms are reported, he said.

Attorneys are aware of one round of mass testing that the prison has conducted, but more are needed, Orihuela said.

“We need more vigilance than that to contain the virus,” she said.

On the orders of U.S. Judge Michael Shea in May, the prison has created two lists of 439 inmates who could be potentially “medically vulnerable” to the virus. There are 810 total inmates in the FCI system, according to the Bureau of Prisons.

Of the first list of 314 inmates, 119 people have been released to home confinement or a halfway house, Orihuela said.

“We are thrilled with that number,” she said. “We hope that continues for other individuals.”

The bureau is reviewing the second list of 125 inmates, so she did not know how many of that group has been released.

The next step is finding individuals who have not yet been identified, Orihuela said. The attorneys will go through medical records and advocate for the release of inmates. The court must ensure the bureau complies with the terms of the agreement, she said.

The court, as well as the hundreds of medically vulnerable inmates the case affects, must approve the settlement. The agreement is in effect until Oct. 31, 2021.

Orihuela said she is not sure how long it will take for the settlement to be approved. A similar case took about six weeks, she said.

“This may be able to move a little quicker than that, possibly a month,” she said.