JD1,NDISPO,TERMED
U.S. District Court - District of Colorado District of Colorado (Denver)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC

Carranza et al v. Reams Assigned to: Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer Referred to: Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 04/07/2020 Date Terminated: 02/16/2021 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Thomas Carranza TERMINATED: 12/02/2020

represented by Andrew Joseph McNulty Killmer Lane & Newman LLP 1543 Champa Street Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 303-571-1000 Email: amcnulty@kln-law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel David Williams Hutchinson Black & Cook, LLC 921 Walnut Street Suite 200 Boulder, CO 80302 303-442-6514 Fax: 303-442-6593 Email: williams@hbcboulder.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darold W. Killmer Killmer Lane & Newman LLP 1543 Champa Street Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 303-571-1000 Fax: 303-571-1001 Email: dkillmer@kln-law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David A. Lane

Plaintiff Jesus Martinez

Killmer Lane & Newman LLP 1543 Champa Street Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 303-571-1000 Fax: 303-571-1001 Email: dlane@kln-law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David George Maxted Maxted Law LLC 1543 Champa Street Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 720-717-0877 Email: dave@maxtedlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jamie Hughes Hubbard Stimson Stancil LaBranche Hubbard LLC 1652 North Downing Street Denver, CO 80218 720-689-8909 Email: hubbard@sslhlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Paul Fairhurst Killmer Lane & Newman LLP 1543 Champa Street Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 303-571-1000 Fax: 303-571-1001 Email: mfairhurst@kln-law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew Joseph McNulty (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel David Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Richard Barnum TERMINATED: 12/02/2020

Darold W. Killmer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David A. Lane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David George Maxted (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jamie Hughes Hubbard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Paul Fairhurst (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel David Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren Elizabeth Groth Hutchinson Black & Cook, LLC 921 Walnut Street Suite 200 Boulder, CO 80302 303-442-6593 Email: groth@hbcboulder.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Silverstein American Civil Liberties UnionDenver 303 East 17th Street Suite 350 Denver, CO 80203 303-777-5482 Fax: 303-777-1773 Email: msilverstein@aclu-co.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Teitelbaum Wallace

Plaintiff Thomas Lewis TERMINATED: 12/02/2020
Plaintiff Michael Ward TERMINATED: 12/02/2020

American Civil Liberties UnionDenver 303 East 17th Street Suite 350 Denver, CO 80203 303-777-5482 Fax: 303-777-1773 Email: rtwallace@aclu-co.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara R. Neel American Civil Liberties UnionDenver 303 East 17th Street Suite 350 Denver, CO 80203 303-777-5482 Fax: 303-777-1773 Email: sneel@aclu-co.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel David Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren Elizabeth Groth (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Silverstein (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Teitelbaum Wallace (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara R. Neel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew Joseph McNulty (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Colby Propes TERMINATED: 12/02/2020

Daniel David Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darold W. Killmer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David A. Lane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David George Maxted (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jamie Hughes Hubbard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Paul Fairhurst (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew Joseph McNulty (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel David Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darold W. Killmer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David A. Lane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David George Maxted (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jamie Hughes Hubbard

Plaintiff Chad Hunter on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons
V. Defendant Steven Reams Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Paul Fairhurst (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew Joseph McNulty (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel David Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darold W. Killmer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David A. Lane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David George Maxted (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jamie Hughes Hubbard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Paul Fairhurst (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew David Ringel Hall & Evans LLC-Denver 1001 Seventeenth Street Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 303-628-3300 Fax: 303-293-3238

Email: ringela@hallevans.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Felix Peters Hall & Evans LLC-Denver 1001 Seventeenth Street Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 303-628-3374 Fax: 303-628-3368 Email: petersj@hallevans.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Joseph Hegarty Hall & Evans LLC-Denver 1001 Seventeenth Street Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 303-628-3300 Fax: 303-628-3368 Email: hegartym@hallevans.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/07/2020
04/07/2020 04/08/2020 04/08/2020

# Docket Text
1 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Preliminary Injunction and Expedited Hearing by Plaintiffs Thomas Carranza, Chad Hunter, Jesus Martinez, Colby Propes, Michael Ward. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Meyer Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Franco-Paredes Report, # 3 Exhibit 3 Carranza Declaration, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Ward Declaration, # 5 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(McNulty, Andrew) (sphil, ). Modified on 4/22/2020 to edit text. (sphil, ). (Entered: 04/07/2020)
2 MOTION to Certify Class by Plaintiffs Richard Barnum, Thomas Carranza, Chad Hunter, Thomas Lewis, Jesus Martinez, Colby Propes, Michael Ward. (McNulty, Andrew) (Entered: 04/07/2020)
3 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Sara R. Neel on behalf of Richard Barnum, Thomas LewisAttorney Sara R. Neel added to party Richard Barnum(pty:pla), Attorney Sara R. Neel added to party Thomas Lewis(pty:pla) (Neel, Sara) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
4 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Mark Silverstein on behalf of Richard Barnum, Thomas LewisAttorney Mark Silverstein added to party Richard Barnum(pty:pla), Attorney Mark Silverstein added to party Thomas Lewis(pty:pla) (Silverstein, Mark) (Entered: 04/08/2020)

04/08/2020
04/08/2020 04/08/2020
04/08/2020 04/08/2020 04/08/2020 04/08/2020 04/08/2020
04/08/2020 04/08/2020 04/08/2020

5 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Rebecca Teitelbaum Wallace on behalf of Richard Barnum, Thomas LewisAttorney Rebecca Teitelbaum Wallace added to party Richard Barnum(pty:pla), Attorney Rebecca Teitelbaum Wallace added to party Thomas Lewis(pty:pla) (Wallace, Rebecca) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
6 Administrative Notice: No initiating document. Attorney contacted with instructions to file the initiating document within 24 hours. (Text Only Entry) (trvo, ) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
7 COMPLAINT for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief against Steven Reams, filed by Colby Propes, Richard Barnum, Chad Hunter, Jesus Martinez, Thomas Carranza, Thomas Lewis, Michael Ward. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(McNulty, Andrew) Modified on 4/8/2020 to correct docket. (alave, ). (Entered: 04/08/2020)
8 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Daniel David Williams on behalf of Richard Barnum, Thomas LewisAttorney Daniel David Williams added to party Richard Barnum(pty:pla), Attorney Daniel David Williams added to party Thomas Lewis(pty:pla) (Williams, Daniel) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
9 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Lauren Elizabeth Groth on behalf of Richard Barnum, Thomas LewisAttorney Lauren Elizabeth Groth added to party Richard Barnum(pty:pla), Attorney Lauren Elizabeth Groth added to party Thomas Lewis(pty:pla) (Groth, Lauren) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
10 Filing fee: $ 400.00, receipt number 1082-7241801. (alave, ) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
11 Administrative Notice: Duplicate filing fee received. Financial notified and a refund is pending. (Text Only Entry) (alave, ) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
12 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Jamie Hughes Hubbard on behalf of Thomas Carranza, Chad Hunter, Jesus Martinez, Colby PropesAttorney Jamie Hughes Hubbard added to party Thomas Carranza(pty:pla), Attorney Jamie Hughes Hubbard added to party Chad Hunter(pty:pla), Attorney Jamie Hughes Hubbard added to party Jesus Martinez(pty:pla), Attorney Jamie Hughes Hubbard added to party Colby Propes(pty:pla) (Hubbard, Jamie) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
13 Case assigned to Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer and drawn to Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty. Text Only Entry (cmadr, ) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
14 Magistrate Judge consent form issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c). NO SUMMONS ISSUED. (cmadr, ) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
15 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Michael Paul Fairhurst on behalf of Thomas Carranza, Chad Hunter, Jesus Martinez, Colby Propes, Michael WardAttorney Michael Paul Fairhurst added to party Thomas Carranza(pty:pla), Attorney Michael Paul Fairhurst added to party Chad Hunter(pty:pla), Attorney Michael Paul Fairhurst added to party Jesus

04/08/2020
04/08/2020
04/08/2020
04/08/2020 04/08/2020 04/08/2020 04/08/2020 04/08/2020

Martinez(pty:pla), Attorney Michael Paul Fairhurst added to party Colby Propes(pty:pla), Attorney Michael Paul Fairhurst added to party Michael Ward(pty:pla) (Fairhurst, Michael) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
16 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by David A. Lane on behalf of Thomas Carranza, Chad Hunter, Jesus Martinez, Colby Propes, Michael WardAttorney David A. Lane added to party Thomas Carranza(pty:pla), Attorney David A. Lane added to party Chad Hunter(pty:pla), Attorney David A. Lane added to party Jesus Martinez(pty:pla), Attorney David A. Lane added to party Colby Propes(pty:pla), Attorney David A. Lane added to party Michael Ward(pty:pla) (Lane, David) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
17 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Darold W. Killmer on behalf of Thomas Carranza, Chad Hunter, Jesus Martinez, Colby Propes, Michael WardAttorney Darold W. Killmer added to party Thomas Carranza(pty:pla), Attorney Darold W. Killmer added to party Chad Hunter(pty:pla), Attorney Darold W. Killmer added to party Jesus Martinez(pty:pla), Attorney Darold W. Killmer added to party Colby Propes(pty:pla), Attorney Darold W. Killmer added to party Michael Ward(pty:pla) (Killmer, Darold) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
18 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by David George Maxted on behalf of Thomas Carranza, Chad Hunter, Jesus Martinez, Colby Propes, Michael WardAttorney David George Maxted added to party Thomas Carranza(pty:pla), Attorney David George Maxted added to party Chad Hunter(pty:pla), Attorney David George Maxted added to party Jesus Martinez(pty:pla), Attorney David George Maxted added to party Colby Propes(pty:pla), Attorney David George Maxted added to party Michael Ward(pty:pla) (Maxted, David) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
19 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Colby Propes, Richard Barnum, Chad Hunter, Jesus Martinez, Thomas Carranza, Thomas Lewis, Michael Ward. Steven Reams waiver sent on 4/8/2020, answer due 6/8/2020. (McNulty, Andrew) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
20 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Matthew Joseph Hegarty on behalf of Steven ReamsAttorney Matthew Joseph Hegarty added to party Steven Reams(pty:dft) (Hegarty, Matthew) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
21 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Andrew David Ringel on behalf of Steven ReamsAttorney Andrew David Ringel added to party Steven Reams(pty:dft) (Ringel, Andrew) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
22 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by John Felix Peters on behalf of Steven ReamsAttorney John Felix Peters added to party Steven Reams(pty:dft) (Peters, John) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
23 MINUTE ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 4/8/2020, re: 1 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Preliminary Injunction and Expedited Hearing filed by Chad Hunter, Michael Ward, Thomas

04/13/2020 04/13/2020 04/13/2020 04/13/2020
04/13/2020
04/14/2020

Carranza, Jesus Martinez, Colby Propes. ORDERED that defendant shall file a response to that portion of plaintiffs' motion seeking a temporary restraining order and expedited hearing on or before April 13, 2020, at 9:00 a.m.. (sphil, ) (Entered: 04/09/2020)
24 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Response to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Expedited Hearing [ECF 1] by Defendant Steven Reams. (Hegarty, Matthew) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
25 ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 4/13/2020 re: 24 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages is GRANTED. Defendant may file a response not to exceed 42 pages. Text Only Entry(pabsec2) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
26 RESPONSE to 1 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Preliminary Injunction and Expedited Hearing filed by Defendant Steven Reams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Declaration of Sheriff Reams, # 2 Exhibit A-1 to Exhibit A-5, # 3 Exhibit A-6 to Exhibit A-10, # 4 Exhibit A-11 to Exhibit A-15, # 5 Exhibit A-16 to Exhibit A-20, # 6 Exhibit A-21 to Exhibit A-25, # 7 Exhibit A-26 to Exhibit A-30, # 8 Exhibit A-31 to Exhibit A-35, # 9 Exhibit A-36 to Exhibit A-39, # 10 Exhibit A-40 to Exhibit A-46)(Hegarty, Matthew) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
27 MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiffs shall file a reply to defendant's response to plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining order, not to exceed 20 pages, on or before Tuesday, April 14, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. In their reply, plaintiffs shall address (1) defendants argument that plaintiffs claim is not viable under Monell v. Dept of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978), and (2) whether any of plaintiffs requests for relief are moot in light of new policies and procedures implemented by defendant, see Docket No. 26 at 30-32, by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 4/13/2020. Text Only Entry (pabsec2) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
28 NOTICE of Supplemental Authorities re: 1 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Preliminary Injunction and Expedited Hearing by Plaintiffs Richard Barnum, Thomas Carranza, Chad Hunter, Thomas Lewis, Jesus Martinez, Colby Propes, Michael Ward (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Cook Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Vecchiarelli Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Brewer Declaration, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Lewis Declaration, # 5 Exhibit 5 - Griffiths Declaration, # 6 Exhibit 6 - Swain v Junior, # 7 Exhibit 7 - New York v Braun, # 8 Exhibit 8 - US v Plunk)(McNulty, Andrew) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
29 MOTION to Withdraw REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND REQUEST FOR SETTING OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING by Plaintiffs Richard Barnum, Thomas Carranza, Chad Hunter, Thomas Lewis, Jesus Martinez, Colby Propes, Michael Ward. (McNulty, Andrew) (Entered: 04/14/2020)

04/15/2020
04/17/2020 04/17/2020 04/17/2020 04/20/2020
04/20/2020 04/21/2020 04/21/2020 04/22/2020

30 MINUTE ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 4/15/2020, re: 29 plaintiffs' Withdrawal of Request for Temporary RestrainingOrder and Request for Setting of Preliminary Injunction Hearing is GRANTED. ORDERED that the portion of plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Expedited Hearing [Docket No. 1] seeking a temporary restraining order is WITHDRAWN. ORDERED that counsel shall jointly contact Chambers via conference call (303- 335-2794) on April 21, 2020 to schedule a preliminary injunction hearing for the week of April 27, 2020..(sphil, ) Modified on 4/15/2020 to edit text. (sphil, ). (Entered: 04/15/2020)
31 Emergency MOTION for Discovery Limited and Expedited Discovery by Plaintiffs Richard Barnum, Thomas Carranza, Chad Hunter, Thomas Lewis, Jesus Martinez, Colby Propes, Michael Ward. (McNulty, Andrew) (Entered: 04/17/2020)
32 Witness List by Plaintiffs Richard Barnum, Thomas Carranza, Chad Hunter, Thomas Lewis, Jesus Martinez, Colby Propes, Michael Ward. (Williams, Daniel) (Entered: 04/17/2020)
33 MINUTE ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 4/17/2020. Defendant shall file a response to plaintiffs' 31 Emergency Motion for Discovery, not to exceed 10 pages, on or before 4/20/2020 at 12:00 p.m. Text Only Entry (pabsec2) (Entered: 04/17/2020)
34 RESPONSE to 31 Emergency MOTION for Discovery Limited and Expedited Discovery filed by Defendant Steven Reams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -- 2020-04-16 -- Relevant Conferral Efforts on ECF 31, # 2 Exhibit B -- 2020-04-10 -- Agreed Upon Inspection Protocol for WCJ -- Short Form, # 3 Exhibit C -- Decl of Capt Matthew Turner)(Hegarty, Matthew) (Entered: 04/20/2020)
35 Witness List by Defendant Steven Reams. (Hegarty, Matthew) (Entered: 04/20/2020)
36 MINUTE ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 4/21/2020, re: 31 plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Limited Expedited Discovery is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.(sphil, ) (Entered: 04/21/2020)
37 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 2 MOTION to Certify Class CERTIFICATION [ECF 2] by Defendant Steven Reams. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Peters, John) (Entered: 04/21/2020)
38 ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 4/22/2020 re: 37 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply is GRANTED. Defendant shall respond to plaintiff' Motion to Certify Class 2 on or before June 8, 2020. Text Only Entry(pabsec2) (Entered: 04/22/2020)

04/22/2020
04/23/2020 04/24/2020

39 MINUTE ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 4/21/2020. ORDERED A preliminary injunction hearing is set for Thursday, April 30, 2020 at 8:00 a.m. before Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer in Courtroom A 701 and will be conducted VIA VIDEO TELECONFERENCE. ORDERED A Status Conference is set for Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. before Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer in Courtroom A 701 and will be conducted VIA VIDEO TELECONFERENCE. The Court will provide the participants with instructions for connecting to the status conference via email. The public may access the hearing by following the procedures outlined in General Order 2020-3. ORDERED that the parties shall exchange with each other, and submit to the Court, their exhibits on or before April 24, 2020. ORDERED that the parties shall file any updated witness lists with the Court on or before April 24, 2020. ORDERED that defendant shall file a response to plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction, not to exceed 15 pages, by April 24, 2020 at noon. ORDERED that plaintiff may file a reply, not to exceed 10 pages, by April 28, 2020 at noon. Text Only Entry (pabsec2, ) (Entered: 04/22/2020)
40 COURTROOM MINUTES for Status Conference via Video Teleconference held on 4/23/2020 before Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer. ORDERED: Plaintiff's oral motion to except the experts from the sequestration order is GRANTED. Fact witnesses will be sequestered. Court Reporter: Janet Coppock. (sgrim) (Main Document 40 replaced on 4/24/2020) (sgrim, ). (Entered: 04/23/2020)
41 RESPONSE to 1 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Preliminary Injunction and Expedited Hearing filed by Defendant Steven Reams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit -- Supplemental Declaration of Capt Matthew Turner for Def Resp to Mot for PI, # 2 Exhibit 2020-04-10 Inmate Masks, # 3 Exhibit 2020-04-10 Protocol Update, # 4 Exhibit 2020-04-11 Reminder to DD Deputies about HALT., # 5 Exhibit 2020-04-11 Reminder to DD Deputies about Goggles, # 6 Exhibit 2020-04-13 Reminder to DD Deputies about Inmate HALT Directive, # 7 Exhibit 2020-04-13 Resp to 19th JD about IM XXXXX w Ltr, # 8 Exhibit 202004-13 Receipt of 100 COVID-19 Test Kits.pdf, # 9 Exhibit 2020-04-13 CDPHE and WCDPHE Notice about JBS w Ltr.pdf, # 10 Exhibit 202004-14 Sgt Reminder to tell IMs to Clean Sinks.pdf, # 11 Exhibit 2020-0414 Reminder to DD about Profl Visitors, # 12 Exhibit 2020-04-14 Documenting HALT Bottle Labeling, # 13 Exhibit 2020-04-15 Distillery Hand Sanitizer, # 14 Exhibit 2020-04-16 WCBOG Masks on Back Order, # 15 Exhibit 2020-04-16 CDOC No-Transport Notice w Ltr, # 16 Exhibit 2020-04-17 Notice from 19th JD Chief Judge Hartmann w Ltr, # 17 Exhibit Video from Capt Turner to WCJ Inmates.pdf, # 18 Exhibit Elbe Notes on CJA TeleMtg w Notes.pdf, # 19 Exhibit 2020-04-17 No Receipt of COVID-19 Work Release IM.pdf, # 20 Exhibit 2020-04-18 WCJ Movement and Medical Protocol for High Risk IMs.pdf,

04/24/2020 04/24/2020 04/24/2020 04/24/2020 04/24/2020 04/26/2020 04/27/2020 04/28/2020
04/29/2020
04/30/2020

# 21 Exhibit EXH B-20 -- 2020-04-20 19th JD 'furloughing' IM Sentences, # 22 Exhibit 2020-04-20 TKHC Revised Iso Protocol.pdf, # 23 Exhibit 2020-04-20 Moving Female Inmates.pdf, # 24 Exhibit 202004-20 Email to WCHD about WCSO Efforts.pdf, # 25 Exhibit, # 26 Exhibit, # 27 Exhibit, # 28 Exhibit, # 29 Exhibit, # 30 Exhibit, # 31 Exhibit, # 32 Exhibit, # 33 Exhibit EXH B-32 -- Pod diagrams, # 34 Exhibit EXH C - Decl - Owens, D - Executed, # 35 Exhibit Final Executed Declaration - William Cooper.pdf, # 36 Exhibit CV - Dr. Cooper.pdf, # 37 Exhibit Greeley Tribune News Story on JBS.pdf)(Hegarty, Matthew) (Entered: 04/24/2020)
42 Witness List - Revised by Plaintiffs Richard Barnum, Thomas Carranza, Chad Hunter, Thomas Lewis, Jesus Martinez, Colby Propes, Michael Ward. (Williams, Daniel) (Entered: 04/24/2020)
43 NOTICE re 1 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Preliminary Injunction and Expedited Hearing by Defendant Steven Reams (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hegarty, Matthew) (Entered: 04/24/2020)
44 Witness List REVISED by Defendant Steven Reams. (Hegarty, Matthew) (Entered: 04/24/2020)
45 Exhibit List for Preliminary Injunction Hearing by Defendant Steven Reams. (Hegarty, Matthew) (Entered: 04/24/2020)
46 Exhibit List for Preliminary Injunction Hearing by Plaintiffs Richard Barnum, Thomas Carranza, Chad Hunter, Thomas Lewis, Jesus Martinez, Colby Propes, Michael Ward. (Hubbard, Jamie) (Entered: 04/24/2020)
47 MOTION for Protective Order Against Circumvention of ECF 36 by Defendant Steven Reams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Hegarty, Matthew) (Entered: 04/26/2020)
48 MINUTE ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 4/27/2020, re: 47 defendant's Motion for Protective Order is DENIED. (sphil, ) (Entered: 04/27/2020)
49 REPLY to Response to 1 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Preliminary Injunction and Expedited Hearing filed by Plaintiffs Richard Barnum, Thomas Carranza, Chad Hunter, Thomas Lewis, Jesus Martinez, Colby Propes, Michael Ward. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Declaration of Franco-Paredes, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Amended Proposed Order)(McNulty, Andrew) (Entered: 04/28/2020)
50 NOTICE Joint Notice of Stipulation as to Authenticity and Admissibility of Certain Exhibits, and as to Areas of Expert Qualification, for Hearing on Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF 1] by Defendant Steven Reams (Hegarty, Matthew) (Entered: 04/29/2020)
51 Second NOTICE of Supplemental Authorities re: 1 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Preliminary Injunction and Expedited Hearing by Plaintiffs Richard Barnum, Thomas Carranza, Chad Hunter,

04/30/2020 04/30/2020 05/01/2020 05/11/2020
05/12/2020

Thomas Lewis, Jesus Martinez, Colby Propes, Michael Ward (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Zepeda-Rivas v Jennings)(McNulty, Andrew) Modified on 5/11/2020 to edit text. (sphil, ). (Entered: 04/30/2020)
52 COURTROOM MINUTES for Preliminary Injunction Hearing via Video Teleconference held on 4/30/2020 before Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer. ORDERED: Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Expediated Hearing 1 is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. The Court will issue a written order. Court Reporter: Janet Coppock. (sgrim) (Entered: 04/30/2020)
53 THIRD NOTICE of Supplemental Authorities in Support of 1 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Plaintiffs Richard Barnum, Thomas Carranza, Chad Hunter, Thomas Lewis, Jesus Martinez, Colby Propes, Michael Ward (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 - Swain v. Junior)(McNulty, Andrew) Modified on 5/11/2020 to add linkage. (sphil, ). (Entered: 04/30/2020)
54 NOTICE of Supplemental Authorities in Support of Supplemental Response re: 41 Response to Motion,,,,,,,, by Defendant Steven Reams (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-1, # 2 Exhibit A-2, # 3 Exhibit A-3)(Peters, John) (Entered: 05/01/2020)
55 ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 5/11/2020, re: 1 portion of plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Expedited Hearing seeking a preliminary injunction is GRANTED IN PART. ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is otherwise is DENIED. ORDERED that, on or before May 18, 2020, at 5:00 p.m., defendant shall certify to the Court that he has compiled a list of those persons ("medically vulnerable inmates") currently held at the Weld County Jail who have one or more of the following conditions: are 65 years and older, have chronic lung disease or moderate to severeasthma, have serious heart conditions, are immunocompromised, have severe obesity, have diabetes, have chronic kidney disease and undergoing dialysis, or have liver disease. ORDERED that, on or before May 21, 2020, at 5:00 p.m., defendant is ordered to file a report with the Court, identifying what new policies have been instituted in accordance with this order. Defendant shall explain in such report what steps the Jail has taken to acquire an adequate mask supply for inmates housed in the Jail.(sphil, ) (Entered: 05/11/2020)
56 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty for non-dispositive matters. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and (b), this case is referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge to (1) convene a scheduling conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and enter a scheduling order meeting the requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.2, (2) conduct such status conferences and issue such orders necessary for compliance with the

05/12/2020 05/12/2020 05/12/2020
05/18/2020

scheduling order, including amendments or modifications of the scheduling order upon a showing of good cause, (3) hear and determine pretrial matters, including discovery and other non-dispositive motions, and (4) conduct a pretrial conference and enter a pretrial order. Court sponsored alternative dispute resolution is governed by D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.6. On the recommendation or informal request of the magistrate judge or on the request of the parties by motion, this court may direct the parties to engage in an early neutral evaluation, a settlement conference, or another alternative dispute resolution proceeding, by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 5/12/2020. Text Only Entry (pabsec2) (Entered: 05/12/2020)
57 ORDER OF RECUSAL by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 5/12/2020. The Clerk of the Court to cause this matter to be reassigned by random draw to another Magistrate Judge. (tsher, ) (Entered: 05/12/2020)
58 CASE REASSIGNED pursuant 57 Order of Recusal. This case is randomly reassigned to Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews. All future pleadings should be designated as 20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC. (Text Only Entry) (tsher, ) (Entered: 05/12/2020)
59 ORDER Setting Rule 16(b) Scheduling Conference. The Scheduling Conference is set for 7/9/2020 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom C201 before Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews. The parties shall file their proposed scheduling order, and email a copy in Word format to Crews_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov, on or before 7/2/2020. The Magistrate Judge Consent Form (ECF. # 14 ) is due 7/2/2020. SO ORDERED by Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews on 5/12/2020. Text Only Entry (skclc2) (Entered: 05/12/2020)
60 Defendant's NOTICE of Complete Compliance re 55 Order on Motion for TRO, by Defendant Steven Reams (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit F -- Second Suppl Decl of Capt Matthew Turner for Def Resp to ECF 55, # 2 Exhibit F-1 -- April 28 2020 COVID-19 SCREENING FORM, # 3 Exhibit F-2 -- 05-13-2020 ''Medically Vulnerable'' Screening Tool, # 4 Exhibit F-3 -- ''Medically Vulnerable'' Interview Screening Tool, # 5 Exhibit F-4 -- List of ''Medically Vulnerable'' Inmates As Defined By the Court, # 6 Exhibit F-5 -- Daily Data from 04-30-2020 to 05-17-2020, # 7 Exhibit G -- Decl of Undersheriff Donnie Patch for Def Resp to ECF 55, # 8 Exhibit H -- Suppl Decl of Sheriff Reams for Def Resp to ECF 55, # 9 Exhibit H-1 --Inmate_Classification, # 10 Exhibit H-2 -Inmate_Reception, # 11 Exhibit H-3 -Inmate_Screening_and_Evaluations, # 12 Exhibit H-4 -Special_Management_Inmates, # 13 Exhibit H-5 -Suicide_Prevention_and_Intervention, # 14 Exhibit H-6 -Spec_Care_Inmates)(Hegarty, Matthew) Modified on 5/19/2020 to edit text. (sphil, ). (Entered: 05/18/2020)

05/20/2020
05/21/2020 05/27/2020 06/08/2020 06/08/2020 06/11/2020
06/18/2020

61 TRANSCRIPT of Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction held on April 30, 2020 before Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer. Pages: 1-261. <br> NOTICE - REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within seven calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the party's intent to redact personal identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. If a Notice of Intent to Redact is not filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available after 90 days. Please see the Notice of Electronic Availability of Transcripts document at www.cod.uscourts.gov.<br> Transcript may only be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber prior to the 90 day deadline for electronic posting on PACER. (jcopp, ) (Entered: 05/20/2020)
62 MOTION for Hearing/Conference re 60 Notice (Other),,,, Plaintiffs' Motion for Forthwith Hearing Regarding Defendant's Non-Compliance with the Court's Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiffs Richard Barnum, Thomas Carranza, Chad Hunter, Thomas Lewis, Jesus Martinez, Colby Propes, Michael Ward. (Hubbard, Jamie) (Entered: 05/21/2020)
63 NOTICE re 62 MOTION for Hearing/Conference re 60 Notice (Other),,,, Plaintiffs' Motion for Forthwith Hearing Regarding Defendant's Non-Compliance with the Court's Preliminary Injunction SUBMISSION OF SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPORT by Plaintiffs Richard Barnum, Thomas Carranza, Chad Hunter, Thomas Lewis, Jesus Martinez, Colby Propes, Michael Ward (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 First Supplemental Declaration)(Killmer, Darold) (Entered: 05/27/2020)
64 RESPONSE to 2 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Defendant Steven Reams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -- Third Supplemental Declaration of Capt Matthew Turner)(Hegarty, Matthew) (Entered: 06/08/2020)
65 Defendant's ANSWER to 7 Amended Complaint, by Steven Reams.(Hegarty, Matthew) (Entered: 06/08/2020)
66 RESPONSE to 62 MOTION for Hearing/Conference re 60 Notice (Other),,,, Plaintiffs' Motion for Forthwith Hearing Regarding Defendant's Non-Compliance with the Court's Preliminary Injunction filed by Defendant Steven Reams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit I - Fourth Suppl Declaration of Capt Matthew Turner, # 2 Exhibit I-1 -2020-05-14 Email to Dustin Owens, # 3 Exhibit I-2 -- 2020-05-19 Email to Capt Matt Turner, # 4 Exhibit I-3 -- 2020-05-18 Email from Lt Matt Elbe, # 5 Exhibit I-4 -- 2020-05-28 Email from Lt Matt Elbe, # 6 Exhibit I-5 -- 2020-05-19 Email from Lt Marcy Roles Foos, # 7 Exhibit I-6 -2020-05-15 Email from Capt Matt Turner)(Hegarty, Matthew) (Entered: 06/11/2020)
67 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 2 MOTION to Certify Class Attorney Daniel David Williams added to party Thomas Carranza(pty:pla), Attorney Daniel David Williams added

06/18/2020 06/24/2020 06/25/2020
06/29/2020 06/29/2020
06/30/2020 06/30/2020

to party Chad Hunter(pty:pla), Attorney Daniel David Williams added to party Jesus Martinez(pty:pla), Attorney Daniel David Williams added to party Colby Propes(pty:pla), Attorney Daniel David Williams added to party Michael Ward(pty:pla) by Plaintiffs Richard Barnum, Thomas Carranza, Chad Hunter, Thomas Lewis, Jesus Martinez, Colby Propes, Michael Ward. (Williams, Daniel) (Entered: 06/18/2020)
68 ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 6/18/2020 re: 67 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file a reply to 2 Motion to Certify Class on or before June 29, 2020. Text Only Entry(pabsec2) (Entered: 06/18/2020)
69 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 62 MOTION for Hearing/Conference re 60 Notice (Other),,,, Plaintiffs' Motion for Forthwith Hearing Regarding Defendant's Non-Compliance with the Court's Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiffs Thomas Carranza, Chad Hunter, Jesus Martinez, Colby Propes. (Hubbard, Jamie) (Entered: 06/24/2020)
70 ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 6/25/2020 re: 69 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply is GRANTED. In seeking any future extension of time, plaintiffs are directed to § I.G.2 of this Court's Practice Standards: "Any motion for extension of time shall be filed no later than three business days before the date the motion, response, reply, or other paper is due." Text Only Entry(pabsec2) (Entered: 06/25/2020)
71 BRIEF in Support of 2 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Plaintiffs Richard Barnum, Thomas Carranza, Chad Hunter, Thomas Lewis, Jesus Martinez, Colby Propes, Michael Ward. (Williams, Daniel) (Entered: 06/29/2020)
72 REPLY to Response to 62 MOTION for Hearing/Conference re 60 Notice (Other),,,, Plaintiffs' Motion for Forthwith Hearing Regarding Defendant's Non-Compliance with the Court's Preliminary Injunction Attorney Jamie Hughes Hubbard added to party Michael Ward(pty:pla) filed by Plaintiffs Richard Barnum, Thomas Carranza, Chad Hunter, Thomas Lewis, Jesus Martinez, Colby Propes, Michael Ward. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Jimmy Chelf)(Hubbard, Jamie) (Entered: 06/29/2020)
73 CONSENT to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge by Plaintiffs Richard Barnum, Thomas Carranza, Chad Hunter, Thomas Lewis, Jesus Martinez, Colby Propes, Michael Ward All parties do not consent.. (Williams, Daniel) (Entered: 06/30/2020)
74 MINUTE ORDER re: Rule 16(b) Scheduling Conference. For the 7/9/2020 Scheduling Conference, the Parties may choose to appear in person or by telephone. However, the Parties must convey their respective decision re: appearance with each other first. Then, they shall inform the

06/30/2020 07/02/2020
07/02/2020 07/02/2020 07/09/2020 07/09/2020

Court of their respective decisions by joint email to Crews_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov on or before 7/3/2020. Any party appearing by telephone shall dial into the Scheduling Conference by using the following dial in information:
CONFERENCE CALL LINE: (888) 251-2909 ACCESS CODE: 5662814#
SO ORDERED by Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews on 6/30/2020. Text Only Entry (skclc2) (Entered: 06/30/2020)
75 REPLY to Response to 62 MOTION for Hearing/Conference re 60 Notice (Other),,,, Plaintiffs' Motion for Forthwith Hearing Regarding Defendant's Non-Compliance with the Court's Preliminary Injunction (Amended) filed by Plaintiffs Richard Barnum, Thomas Carranza, Chad Hunter, Thomas Lewis, Jesus Martinez, Colby Propes, Michael Ward. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Jimmy Chelf)(Hubbard, Jamie) (Entered: 06/30/2020)
76 MINUTE ORDER The upcoming hearing in this matter before Magistrate Judge Crews shall be conducted via telephone. The parties shall call the Court provided conference line as a participant at 888.251.2909, Access Code 5662814# at the scheduled time. The Court notes that the parties may hear the conclusion of a prior hearing at the time they call in, and are instructed to simply wait until their case is called. The Court thanks the parties in advance for their patience and flexibility as the Court implements this new technology. By Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews on 7/2/2020. Text Only Entry (amont, ) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
77 Proposed Scheduling Order by Plaintiffs Richard Barnum, Thomas Carranza, Chad Hunter, Thomas Lewis, Jesus Martinez, Colby Propes, Michael Ward. (Williams, Daniel) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
78 ORDER. Plaintiffs' Motion for Forthwith Hearing Regarding Defendant's Non-Compliance with the Court's Preliminary Injunction [Docket No. 62 ] is DENIED. By Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 07/02/2020. (athom, ) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
79 COURTROOM MINUTES for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews: Telephone Scheduling Conference held on 7/9/2020. Discovery due by 12/18/2020. Dispositive Motions due by 1/22/2021. Joint Status Report due by 9/22/2020. Telephone Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/25/2021 10:00 AM in Courtroom C201 before Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews. FTR: Courtroom C-201. (amont, ) (Entered: 07/09/2020)
80 SCHEDULING ORDER: by Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews on 7/9/2020. (amont, ) (Entered: 07/09/2020)

07/24/2020 07/29/2020
09/03/2020 09/04/2020
09/14/2020 09/22/2020 10/06/2020 10/07/2020 10/15/2020

81 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 55 Order on Motion for TRO,,,, Unopposed Motion to Renew Preliminary Injunction for Additional Thirty Days by Plaintiffs Richard Barnum, Thomas Carranza, Chad Hunter, Thomas Lewis, Jesus Martinez, Colby Propes, Michael Ward. (Williams, Daniel) (Entered: 07/24/2020)
82 MINUTE ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 7/29/2020, re: 81 plaintiffs Unopposed Motion to Renew Preliminary Injunction for Additional Thirty Days is GRANTED. ORDERED that the Court's order granting a preliminary injunction, Docket No. 55, is extended to run an additional 30 days. The order will expire on September 8, 2020 unless extended by the Court.(sphil, ) (Entered: 07/29/2020)
83 Second MOTION for Order to Renew Preliminary Injunction for Additional Thirty Days by Plaintiffs Richard Barnum, Thomas Carranza, Chad Hunter, Thomas Lewis, Jesus Martinez, Colby Propes, Michael Ward. (Hubbard, Jamie) (Entered: 09/03/2020)
84 ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 9/4/2020, re: 83 Second MOTION to Renew Preliminary Injunction for Additional Thirty Days. ORDERED that the Court's order GRANTING a preliminary injunction, Docket No. 55, is extended to run an additional 30 days. The order will expire on October 8, 2020 unless extended by the Court.(sphil, ) (Entered: 09/04/2020)
85 STATUS REPORT to the Court by Defendant Steven Reams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit J - Second Supp Declaration of Sheriff Steven Reams, # 2 Exhibit J-1, # 3 Exhibit J-2)(Hegarty, Matthew) (Entered: 09/14/2020)
86 Joint STATUS REPORT by Plaintiffs Richard Barnum, Thomas Carranza, Chad Hunter, Thomas Lewis, Jesus Martinez, Colby Propes, Michael Ward. (Williams, Daniel) (Entered: 09/22/2020)
87 Third Unopposed MOTION to Renew Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiffs Richard Barnum, Thomas Carranza, Chad Hunter, Thomas Lewis, Jesus Martinez, Colby Propes, Michael Ward. (Williams, Daniel) Modified on 10/7/2020 to correct event text (athom, ). (Entered: 10/06/2020)
88 MINUTE ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 10/07/2020 re: 87 Third Unopposed Motion to Renew Preliminary Injunction. The
Court's order granting a preliminary injunction, Docket No. 55 , is extended for an additional 32 days. The order will expire on November 9, 2020 unless extended by the Court. (athom, ) (Entered: 10/07/2020)
89 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer and Respond to Plaintiffs' First Set of Written Discovery to Defendant by Defendant Steven Reams. (Hegarty, Matthew) (Entered: 10/15/2020)

10/15/2020 10/21/2020
11/06/2020 11/06/2020
11/25/2020

90 MEMORANDUM regarding 89 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer and Respond to Plaintiffs' First Set of Written Discovery to Defendant filed by Steven Reams. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews, by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 10/15/2020. Text Only Entry (pabsec2) (Entered: 10/15/2020)
91 ORDER granting 89 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File. Defendant's move the Court requesting additional time to respond to Plaintiffs' First Set of Written Discovery and argues press of business. Press of business is not considered good cause under Chief Judge Brimmer's Practice Standards. See PAB Practice Standards 1.G.1. However, the Court finds good cause given the Motion is unopposed and the Parties are attempting to resolve this matter. Accordingly, Defendant Reams has up to, and including, 11-27-2020 to file his answer to Plaintiffs' First Set of Written Discovery. SO ORDERED by Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews on 10-21-2020. Text Only Entry (skclc2). (Entered: 10/21/2020)
92 Joint MOTION for Order to for Fourth Extension of Preliminary Injunction Order, Second Extension of Time for Defendant to Answer and Respond to Plaintiffs' First Set of Written Discovery to Defendant, and First Amendment of Scheduling Order Deadlines by Defendant Steven Reams. (Hegarty, Matthew) (Entered: 11/06/2020)
93 MINUTE ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 11/06/2020 re: 92 Joint MOTION for Order to for Fourth Extension of Preliminary Injunction Order, Second Extension of Time for Defendant to Answer and Respond to Plaintiffs' First Set of Written Discovery to Defendant, and First Amendment of Scheduling Order Deadlines filed by Steven Reams. It is ORDERED that the Court's order granting a preliminary injunction, Docket No. 55 , is extended for an additional 30 days. The order will expire on December 9, 2020, unless extended by the Court. The remainder of the parties' Joint Motion for Fourth Extension of Preliminary Injunction Order, Second Extension of Time for Defendant to Answer and Respond to Plaintiffs' First Set of Written Discovery to Defendant, and First Amendment of Scheduling Order Deadlines [Docket No. 92 ] is referred to Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews. (athom, ) (Entered: 11/06/2020)
94 ORDER granting [#92] MOTION for Order for Fourth Extension of Preliminary Injunction Order, Second Extension of Time for Defendant to Answer and Respond to Plaintiffs' First Set of Written Discovery to Defendant, and First Amendment of Scheduling Order Deadlines . As an initial matter, the Court notes Chief Judge Brimmer addressed the portion of the Motion regarding the parties' request to extend the preliminary injunction order [#93.] The Court, therefore, limits its order to parties' request for Extension of Time for Defendant's Answer and Respond to Plaintiff's First Set of Written Discovery and their Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order. The Court finds good cause to GRANT both portions

11/30/2020 11/30/2020
11/30/2020 12/02/2020

of the Motion. Accordingly, Defendants have up to, and including, 12-282020 to Respond to Plaintiff's First Set of Written Discovery.
Further, the Scheduling Order is modified as follows:
Affirmative Experts due 1-29-2021;
Written Discovery served on parties by 2-5-2021;
Rebuttal Experts due 3-5-2021;
Discovery closes 3-19-2021;
702 Motions deadline 4-5-2021;
Dispositive Motions deadline 4-23-2021; and
Final Pretial Conference is set for 6-23-2021 at 9:30 am in Courtroom C201 before Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews.
SO ORDERED by Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews on 11-25-2020. Text Only Entry (skclc2). (Entered: 11/25/2020) 95 Stipulation of Dismissal of Claims by Plaintiffs Richard Barnum, Thomas Carranza, Thomas Lewis, Colby Propes, Michael Ward. (Williams, Daniel) Modified on 11/30/2020 to edit name of the document.(sphil, ). (Entered: 11/30/2020) 96 Joint MOTION for Order to for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Certification of a Class and Appointment of Class Counsel, and Permission to Post Class Notice by Defendant Steven Reams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Consent Decree and Final Judgment, # 2 Exhibit A-1 - Modification of Arrest Standards Due to COVID-19, # 3 Exhibit A-2 - Notice of Determination of Being Medically Vulnerable With Respect to COVID-19, # 4 Exhibit A-3 - Second Updated Screening Form, # 5 Exhibit B - Notice To Class)(Hegarty, Matthew) (Entered: 11/30/2020) 97 Joint MOTION for Order to For Fifth Extension of Preliminary Injunction Order and for Stay of All Proceedings Pending Ruling on Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Certification of a Class and Appointment of Class Counsel, and Permission to Post Class Notice by Defendant Steven Reams. (Hegarty, Matthew) (Entered: 11/30/2020) 98 MINUTE ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 12/2/2020, re: 95 Stipulation of Dismissal of Claims. ORDERED plaintiffs Thomas Carranza, Richard Barnum, Thomas Lewis, Michael Ward, and Colby

12/04/2020
12/11/2020 12/18/2020 12/29/2020
01/25/2021 02/10/2021

Propes were dismissed without prejudice as of the entry of the stipulation of dismissal. No Court order is necessary. (sphil, ) (Entered: 12/02/2020)
99 ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 12/4/2020. ORDERED that the Joint Motion for Fifth Extension of Preliminary Injunction Order and for Stay of All Proceedings Pending Ruling on Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Certification of a Class and Appointment of Class Counsel, and Permission to Post Class Notice [Docket No. 97 ] is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that this case is hereby STAYED until the entry of an order of the Court on the Class Settlement Motion. It is further ORDERED that the Court's order granting a preliminary injunction, Docket No. 55 , is extended for an additional 58 days. The order will expire on February 5, 2021, unless extended by the Court. (rvill, ) (Entered: 12/04/2020)
100 ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 12/11/2020 re: 96 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by Steven Reams. ORDERED that the parties shall file supplemental briefs on or before December 18, 2020. (rvill, ) (Entered: 12/11/2020)
101 JOINT SUPPLEMENT to 96 Joint MOTION for Order to for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Certification of a Class and Appointment of Class Counsel, and Permission to Post Class Notice by Defendant Steven Reams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B -- UPDATED Version of Notice in English, # 2 Exhibit B-1 -- UPDATED Version of Notice Translated into Spanish, # 3 Exhibit B-2 -- UPDATED Decl of WCSO Translator)(Hegarty, Matthew) Modified on 12/20/2020 to edit text. (sphil, ). (Entered: 12/18/2020)
102 ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 12/29/2020, re: 96 the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Certification of a Class and Appointment of Class Counsel, and Permission to Post Class Notice is GRANTED. ORDERED that the Proposed Consent Decree and Final Judgment [Docket No. 96-1] is PRELIMINARILY APPROVED with regard to present and future medically vulnerable inmates. ORDERED that a Fairness Hearing is set for February 12, 2021 at 3:30 p.m. by Video Teleconference (VTC) only. (sphil, ) (Entered: 12/29/2020)
103 NOTICE re 102 Order on Motion for Order,, Proposed Consent Decree and Final Judgment by Defendant Steven Reams (Hegarty, Matthew) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
104 MINUTE ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 2/10/2021 re: 101 Joint Supplement filed by Steven Reams. ORDERED that the parties shall file a motion for final approval of the settlement agreement and final certification of the proposed class on Thursday, February 11, 2021 by 5:00 p.m.. (sphil, ) (Entered: 02/10/2021)

02/11/2021 02/11/2021 02/12/2021 02/12/2021 02/12/2021
02/16/2021 02/16/2021
02/16/2021
02/16/2021

105 Joint MOTION for Order to for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Final Certification of the Proposed Class by Defendant Steven Reams. (Hegarty, Matthew) (Entered: 02/11/2021)
106 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT - Level 1: by Defendant Steven Reams.. (Hegarty, Matthew) (Entered: 02/11/2021)
107 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Restrict by Plaintiff Richard Barnum. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Proposed Order re Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Order to Restrict Documents)(Williams, Daniel) (Entered: 02/12/2021)
108 MEMORANDUM regarding 107 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Restrict filed by Richard Barnum. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews, by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 2/12/2021. Text Only Entry (pabsec2) (Entered: 02/12/2021)
109 COURTROOM MINUTES for Fairness Hearing via Video Teleconference held on 2/12/2021 before Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer. ORDERED: Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Final Certification of the Proposed Class 105 is GRANTED, as stated on record. Court Reporter: Terri Lindblom. (sgrim, ) (Entered: 02/12/2021)
110 CONSENT DECREE AND FINAL JUDGMENT, By Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 2/16/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit) (angar, ) (Entered: 02/16/2021)
111 ORDER denying 107 Motion for Leave to Restrict. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Motion and finds it does not address all the factors required by the Local Rules. Specifically, Plaintiff has failed to explain why no alternative to restriction is practicable or why only restriction will adequately protect the interest in question. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED without prejudice to refile addressing all the factors at D.Colo.LCivR 7.2(c). SO ORDERED by Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews on 2-16-2021. Text Only Entry (skclc2). (Entered: 02/16/2021)
112 ORDER granting 105 Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Final Certification of the Proposed Class. Denying as moot 2 Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The Court gives final approval to the Consent Decree and Final Judgment in all respects and authorizes and directs the parties to consummate the Consent Decree and Final Judgment in accordance with its terms and provisions. Judgment shall be entered dismissing this case with prejudice, by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 2/16/2021. (ebuch) (Entered: 02/16/2021)
113 FINAL JUDGMENT pursuant to 112 Order, by Clerk on 2/16/2021. (ebuch) (Entered: 02/16/2021)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:

02/25/2021 20:45:20

CRClearinghouse:2563377:0

Client Code:

Description: Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages:

18

Cost:

Gillan
1:20-cv00977-PABSKC
1.80

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 2 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 13
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: 20-cv-977
THOMAS CARRANZA; JESUS MARTINEZ; RICHARD BARNUM; THOMAS LEW; MICHAEL WARD; COLBY PROPES; and CHAD HUNTER
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons,
v.
STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
Plaintiffs Thomas Carranza, Jesus Martinez, Richard Barnum, Thomas Lew, Michael
Ward, Colby Propes, and Chad Hunter (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”), through counsel,
respectively move this Court for entry of an order granting immediate class certification for the
purpose of effectuating the temporary injunctive relief requested in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction.1 In support of this motion, they state as follows:
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL PURSUANT TO D.C.COLO.LCivR. 7.1 A
1 When considering a motion for TRO or preliminary injunction, a court may certify a class on a provisional basis for purposes of providing immediate relief, and revisit class certification at later stages of the proceeding if necessary. See F.R.C.P. 23(c )(1)(A) (court to rule on class certification “at early practicable time”); F.R.C.P. 23(c )(1)(C) (court retains authority to “alter[] or amend[]” class certification order pretrial); Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 707 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2012) (court may “certify a provisional class for purposes of [a] preliminary injunction”); DG ex rel. Stricklin v. Devaugh, 594 F.3d 1188, 1201 (10th Cir. 2010) (court may certify class on a preliminary basis pre-discovery).

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 2 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 13
The undersigned counsel conferred with counsel for Defendant Reams regarding this Motion. Defendant Reams opposes this Motion.
I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs have moved for interim relief to prevent catastrophic harm to medically
vulnerable individuals incarcerated in the Weld County Jail as a result of the Weld County Jail’s failure to take adequate preventative measures to address the COVID-19 pandemic. Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 23(b)(2), this motion seeks certification of a class of incarcerated persons who are in desperate need of that interim relief before they suffer substantial – and potentially fatal – harm.
As described in detail in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction and Expedited Hearing, people over the age of fifty-five, as well as those with certain underlying conditions, face far greater chances of serious illness or death from COVID-19. The overwhelming consensus of public health authorities and experts is that incarcerated individuals are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 because of the close spaces in which individuals are confined, the shared use of facilities with lack of adequate hygiene, and facilities such as the Weld County Jail lacking the medical care infrastructure necessary to address the spread of COVID-19 or to treat high-risk individuals in its custody. As a result, experts have warned that “widespread community transmission of COVID-19 within a correctional institution is likely to result in a disproportionately high COVID-19 mortality rate.”2 While several counties in Colorado have undertaken measures to reduce their jail populations in an effort to slow the spread of COVID-19, Weld County has thus far refused to take meaningful action to address the risks posed by COVID-
2 “COVID-19 in Correctional Settings: Unique Challenges and Proposed Responses” (March 23, 2020), https://amend.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/COVID-in-Corrections-Challenges-andSolutions1.pdf; see also “Correctional Facilities In The Shadow Of COVID-19: Unique Challenges And Proposed Solutions,” Health Affairs Blog, March 26, 2020, available at https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200324.784502/full/ (last visited Apr. 3, 2020).
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 2 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 13
19 and has failed to implement adequate, system-wide measures to protect incarcerated individuals. This puts the Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent in mortal jeopardy, and also endangers the larger community in light of the daily movement of both prisoners and staff in and out of the Weld County Jail.
Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class of individuals: All current and future persons held at the Weld County Jail who are at high risk of complications from COVID-19 because:
(a) they are age 55 or older; or (b) they have the following chronic health conditions: cancer; autoimmune disease (including lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, Sjogren’s, Crohn’s); chronic lung disease (including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchiectasis, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis or other chronic conditions associated with impaired lung function); history of cardiovascular disease; chronic arthritis; chronic liver or kidney disease; diabetes; hypertension; heart failure; HIV; on chronic steroids or other immunosuppressant medications for chronic conditions; (c) they have history of smoking or other substance abuse disorders; or (d) they are pregnant. This class easily satisfies the requirements of Rule 23. Indeed, the record evidence, along with Weld County Jail’s own policies and practices, demonstrate common COVID-19 policy and planning failures that impact hundreds of members of the proposed class in exactly the same way – all are at risk of serious illness or death due to Weld County Jail’s lack of preventative measures. See Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction and Expedited Hearing at p.12-25. To address these common failures, the Court need not make any determination regarding the individual circumstances of any class member; rather, it must determine whether the Weld County Jail’s actions (or inactions) are of sufficient severity to warrant interim relief. Class certification is therefore the most appropriate vehicle for the Court to remediate these systemic
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 2 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 13
defects that subject Plaintiffs and the class to a substantial – and intolerable – risk of serious harm if left unaddressed. II. THE PROPOSED CLASS REPRESENTATIVES
The seven proposed class representatives all fall within the high risk populations who are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 and particularly likely to suffer severe illness, life-altering complications, or death as a result of exposure to the virus.
The proposed class representatives are (1) Thomas Carranza, who is 55 years old, suffers from asthma, high blood pressure and an undiagnosed intestinal condition, and has previously been hospitalized for acute asthmatic bronchitis; (2) Jesus Martinez, who is 33 years old, overweight, and suffers from multiple chronic medical conditions including diabetes, asthma, shortness of breath, and high blood pressure; (3) Richard Barnum, who is 54 years old, previously suffered kidney failure, and currently has Hepatitis C, stage two kidney disease, and high blood pressure; (4) Thomas Lew, is who is 60 years old and suffers from vitiligo, an immune deficiency disease; (5) Michael Ward, who is 31 years old and suffers from high blood pressure and arthritis; (6) Colby Propes, who is 44 years old and has a history of smoking as well as diagnosed substance abuse disorders.; and (7) Chad Hunter, who is 46 years old, has a history of smoking and a substance abuse disorder, and is hypoglycemic.
All seven of the proposed class representatives are currently imprisoned at the Weld County Jail and their experiences with the Weld County Jail’s policy response to COVID-19 are remarkably similar. None has been provided masks, none has been afforded the benefit of sanitary supplies needed to prevent spread of the disease; none has been given access to food prepared in a hygienic manner consistent with preventing the spread of COVID-19; none has been provided use of lavatory facilities and other common spaces that are maintained with the needed hygiene to
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 2 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 13
prevent the spread of COVID-19; and none has been afforded the required six-foot radius to ensure proper physical distancing. Thus, similar to members of the proposed class, each of the proposed Class Representatives remains at high risk of serious illness, complications, and death due to the lack of adequate system-wide preventative measures at the Weld County Jail. III. THE PROPOSED CLASS COMPLIES WITH RULE 23
Class certification is proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
In addition, the proposed class must be certifiable under one of the three sub-provisions of Rule 23(b). Here, Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule 23(b)(2), because the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2)
A. The proposed class complies with Rule 23(a) i. The proposed class is so numerous that joinder would be impracticable.
A class must be sufficiently numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). The impracticability of the joinder requirement does not require that joinder is impossible, but only that the plaintiffs “will suffer a strong litigational hardship or inconvenience if joinder is required.” Cook v. Rockwell Intern. Corp., 151 F.R.D. 378, 384 (D. Colo. 1993). “In determining whether a proposed class meets the numerosity requirement, ‘the exact number of potential members need not be shown, ‘and a court ‘may make common sense assumptions to
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 2 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 13

support a finding that joinder would be impracticable.’” In re Thornburh Mortgage, Inc. Sec. Litig., 812 F. Supp. 2d 1178, 1221 (D. N. M. 2012) (internal quotation omitted).
The proposed class easily satisfies the numerosity requirement. Weld County Jail has a current population of approximately 575 inmates and is the sixth most populous jail in Colorado. Although the exact number of people at the Weld County Jail who fall within the high risk populations groups is unknown, that number can be reasonably approximated. Based on recent jail rosters, approximately 44 of Weld County Jail’s current inmates are over age 55 and older. Additionally, approximately 35 percent of Colorado’s prison population have moderate to severe medical issues.3 Even assuming significant overlap between these two population groups, upwards of 150 individuals fall within the proposed Class. Given these numbers, joinder is impracticable and numerosity is satisfied. See Helmer v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2014 WL 1133299 at *3 (D. Colo. Mar. 21, 2014). (finding numerosity was met where class consisted of 132 members).
Joinder is also impracticable here due to the population at issue and the extraordinary current circumstances. The members of the class include both individuals currently incarcerated and those individuals who may be incarcerated in the coming weeks and months as COVID-19 continues to spread. Because the class includes individuals who will suffer the same injury in the future, traditional joinder is particularly difficult. See Newberg on Class Actions § 25:4 (4th ed. 2016) (“Even a small class of fewer than 10 actual members may be upheld if an indeterminate number of individuals are likely to become class members in the future or if the identity or location of many class members is unknown for good cause.”); Jack v. Am. Linen Supply Co., 498 F.2d

3

Departmental

Reports

and

Statistics,

Colorado

Department

of

Corrections, www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdoc/departmental-reports-and-statistics; Statistical Report FY

2018, Colorado Department of Corrections, drive.google.com/file/d/1Sbiu6bl7NVZ7BL-

ij3u_TyrmbUOAoWKS/view.

6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 2 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 13
122, 124 (5th Cir. 1974) (finding numerosity requirement satisfied when class included “unknown, unnamed future” class members rendering joinder “certainly impracticable”). Moreover, incarcerated individuals at Weld County Jail are, by definition, held in custody with limited access to information at the best of times. Under the extreme and unique circumstances of COVID-19, these individuals are also currently unable to meet with anyone outside the facility except for attorneys in very narrow situations and are limited in their ability to bring individual lawsuits due to court closures in Weld County and throughout Colorado more generally.
ii. The proposed class representatives present issues of fact and law in common with the class.
To satisfy commonality, the “[p]laintiff must allege a ‘common contention of such a nature that it is capable of class-wide resolution – which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.’” WalMart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). “What matters to class certification . . . is not the raising of common ‘questions’ – even in droves – but rather, the capacity of a class-wide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). For the purposes of commonality, “even a single common question will do.” Id. at 359. Courts have repeatedly found commonality is met where the class’s claims arise from a uniform course of conduct on the part of the defendant. See Kerns v. Spectralink Corp., 2013 WL 27380785 at *2 (D. Colo. July 1, 2003). And in civil rights lawsuits challenging conditions of detention, commonality is satisfied where the lawsuit challenges “systemic policies and practices that allegedly expose inmates to a substantial risk of harm,” even where there are “individual factual differences among class members.” Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 681-681 (9th Cir. 2014) (collecting cases across the country).
7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 2 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 13
In this case, there are multiple common questions of law and fact pertaining to the Weld County Jail’s policies and practices regarding COVID-19. These include questions of whether the Weld County Jail’s course of conduct has exposed the class to harm and/or a substantial risk of harm due to its deliberate indifference to the risks of COVID-19, and whether the Weld County jail has failed to take appropriate preventative measures on a system-wide basis. All members of the class are subject to the same action (or inaction) by the Weld County Jail, and all have a right to receive adequate COVID-19 prevention, testing and treatment. Because proper preventative measures have not been taken, all members of the class face potential imminent harm and are vulnerable to severe illness or death if exposed to COVID-19.
iii. The proposed class representatives’ claims are typical of those of the class.
Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the putative class representatives’ claims are typical of those of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). “A named plaintiff’s claim is ‘typical’ when it arises out of the same event, practice or course of conduct of the defendant, and is based on the same legal theory on which the class claims are predicated.” Murphy v. Lenderlive Network, Inc., 2014 WL 5396165 at *4 (D. Colo. Oct. 22, 2014). “Provided the claims of the Named Plaintiffs and class members are based on the same legal or remedial theory, differing fact situations of the class members do not defeat typicality.” DG ex rel. Stricklin v. Devaugh, 594 F.3d 1188, 1198-99 (10th Cir. 2010). For the same reason that there are overwhelmingly common issues of fact and law, the Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the class. See Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 349 n.5 (“The commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) tend to merge.”).
Here, the named Plaintiffs have the same claims and face the same harms as members of the proposed class. Named Plaintiffs, similar to members of the class, all fall within the high risk population that places them in danger of severe illness or death if they are exposed to COVID-19.
8

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 2 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 13
All challenge Weld County Jail’s failure to take adequate preventative measures – a failure that places them in substantial risk of serious harm. Named Plaintiffs’ claims are therefore sufficiently coextensive with those of the class to satisfy typicality.
iv. The proposed class representatives and class counsel can adequately represent the case.
Rule 23(a)(4) requires that “the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). The adequacy requirement ensures that there are no potential “conflicts of interest between named parties and the class they seek to represent.” Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 625 (1997). “Resolution of two questions determines legal adequacy: (1) do the named plaintiffs and their counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class members, and (2) with the named plaintiffs and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class?” Rutter & Wilbanks Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 314 F. 3d 1180, 1187-88 (10th Cir. 2002) (internal citation omitted). Adequate representation is usually presumed absent contrary evidence. See 1 Newberg on Class Actions § 3:72 (5th Ed. 2019).
First, there is no conflict between the named Plaintiffs and the members of the class. As described above, the named Plaintiffs and class members have the same injury and seek the same relief. Likewise, Plaintiff’s counsel, consisting of Hutchinson, Black and Cook, LLC in cooperation with the ACLU of Colorado and Kilmer, Lane & Newman, LLP, are well-qualified and highly experienced in class action and civil rights matters, and have done extensive work investigating this action. Counsel are exceptionally well versed in class actions and constitutional law, with decades of experience litigating such cases, and have sufficient resources to vigorously prosecute this case.
B. The proposed class is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2)
9

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 2 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 13
Certification under Rule 23(b0(2) is appropriate where, as here, defendants “acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class. . . ..” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). A court may certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class where “a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the class.” Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830, 851-52 (2018) (internal citation and quotation omitted).
The claims raised and the relief sought by Plaintiffs in this action are precisely the sort that Rule 23(b)(2) was designed to facilitate: “[c]ivil rights cases against parties charged with unlawful, class based discrimination are prime examples,” of proper (b)(2) actions. Amchem Prods., 521 U.S. at 614. In their motion for an interim injunction, Plaintiffs seek a Court order implementing a single, system wide process to rectify the violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and protect them from the threat of COVID-19 exposure, including:
(1) Physically distancing all inmates from one another and staff within the Weld County Jail, which necessitates at least six feed of distances between individuals at all times;
(2) Thoroughly and professionally disinfecting and sanitizing the Weld County Jail on a daily basis;
(3) Providing hygiene supplies, including supplies to wash hands and disinfect common areas, to inmates at all times and free of charge;
(4) Providing personal protective equipment including, but not limited to masks, to all staff members and inmates;
(5) Taking particularly heightened precautions with respect to food handling and delivery, such as ensuring that people who come into contact with food are not displaying any potential symptoms of COVID-19, have not recently been in contact with people displaying potential symptoms of COVID-19, and wear appropriate personal protection
10

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 2 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 13
at all times when in contact with food (including but not limited to appropriate masks and gloves); (6) Implementing appropriate policies and protocols to identify inmates who are possibly carrying COVID-19 and quarantine those inmates from other individuals; and (7) Providing accurate up-to-date educational and informational materials regarding sanitation and prevention of COVID-19, the status of how COVID-19 is affecting the facility including the number of infected inmates and staff, and daily access to news reports regarding COVID-19. This system-wide, process-based relief is exactly the type of single injunction that would benefit all members of the proposed class – and falls squarely within the purview of Rule 23(b)(2) as a result. IV. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant class certification, at a minimum on a provisional basis, contemporaneously with providing interim relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 as set forth in Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Dated: April 7, 2020
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Andy McNulty Andy McNulty Michael P. Fairhurst David A. Lane Darold W. Killmer KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP 1543 Champa St. Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 571-1000 (303) 571-1001 Facsimile amcnulty@kln-law.com
11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 2 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 13
mfairhurst@kln-law.com dlane@kln-law.com dkillmer@kn-law.com
and
David G. Maxted Maxted Law LLC 1543 Champa Street Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 720-717-0877 Fax: 720-500-1251 dave@maxtedlaw.com
and
Jamie Hughes Hubbard STIMSON STANCIL LABRANCHE HUBBARD, LLC Phone: 720.689.8909 Email: hubbard@sslhlaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs Carranza, Martinez, Propes, and Hunter
Mark Silverstein Rebecca T. Wallace Sara R. Neel AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF COLORADO 303 E. 17th Avenue, Suite 350 Denver, Colorado 80203 (720) 402-3114 msilverstein@aclu-co.org rtwallace@aclu-co.org sneel@aclu-co.org
and
Daniel D. Williams Lauren E. Groth HUTCHINSON BLACK AND COOK, LLC 921 Walnut Street, Suite 200 Boulder, Colorado 80302 (303) 442-6514 Williams@hbcboulder.com Groth@hbcboulder.com
12

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 2 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 13 In cooperation with the ACLU Foundation of Colorado Counsel for Plaintiffs Barnum and Lewis
13

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 54
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: 20-cv-977 THOMAS CARRANZA; JESUS MARTINEZ; RICHARD BARNUM; THOMAS LEWIS; MICHAEL WARD; COLBY PROPES; and CHAD HUNTER,
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND EXPEDITED HEARING
Plaintiffs, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully move for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to ensure that they are adequately protected from the tremendous risk of contracting COVID-19 within the Weld County Jail. Plaintiffs also request an expedited evidentiary hearing. In support, Plaintiffs state: 1. INTRODUCTION
“These are extraordinary times.”1 COVID-19 poses an unprecedented threat to the country, our state, the Weld County community, and citizens housed in the Weld County Jail. COVID-19 has been declared a national pandemic, President Trump has declared a
1 This is how federal judges have described the current COVID-19 outbreak. See Matter of Extradition of Toledo Manrique, No. 19-MJ-71055 (TSH), 2020 WL 1307109, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2020).
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 54
national emergency, and the Governor has issued a proclamation declaring a disaster in the State of Colorado. More than 823,000 people across the globe have been infected and the disease has caused more than 40,500 deaths.
Approximately 575 people, at least forty-four of whom are over the age of fiftyfive, are incarcerated in Weld County living in close quarters where all aspects of daily life, including healthcare and food service, take place in the same small space. Correctional settings pose a particular risk of spreading the virus, with catastrophic consequences not just to the detainees and staff, but also to their communities and the hospitals that serve them. Each day, dozens of staff must come and go from the Weld County Jail, potentially carrying with them the novel coronavirus for days, even weeks, without ever showing symptoms. There have already been at least eight confirmed cases of COVID-19 among inmates at the Weld County Jail and Weld County Jail staff. Those who are incarcerated and displaying obvious symptoms of COVID-19 are not being tested. The risk of rapid and pervasive infection is high.2 And Plaintiffs, the men and women in Weld County Jail custody who have underlying serious medical conditions and individuals over 55 years of age, face an even greater risk of severe illness and death from the ongoing outbreak.
2 The speed and breadth of this problem for incarcerated people is stark. At the peak of the outbreak in Wuhan, China — the province where COVID-19 originated — over half of all reported COVID-19 cases were incarcerated people. On Rikers Island, the rate of infection among incarcerated people is over seven times the rate of infection in New York City generally, and 25 times higher than the rate in Wuhan, China. This crisis recalls the 1918 flu pandemic, in which a cluster of infections at San Quentin Prison in California became “one of the primary foci” of a worldwide epidemic that killed between 20 million and 100 million people. See Niyi Awofeso, Prisons Show Prophylaxis for Close Contacts May Indeed Help in Next Flu Pandemic, 329 BMJ 173, 173 (2004); Gina Kolata, Flu: The Story Of The Great Influenza Pandemic of 1918 And The Search For The Virus That Caused It 5 (2011).
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 54
Defendant Sheriff Steven Reams is the person with the constitutional responsibility to ensure that inmates at the Weld County Jail are safe. But instead of proactively taking steps to prevent a crisis in his facility, Defendant has been a COVID19-denier from the outset of the crisis in direct contravention of science, data, and common sense.3 Not only has Defendant refused to lead any efforts to ensure physical distancing within the Weld County Jail, he also discouraged local district attorneys and judges from making efforts to decrease the Weld County jail population and assured them he has things under control in his jail and was ready to manage COVID-19. Not only are things not under control at the Weld County Jail, they are spiraling out of control. The number of infected inmates and staff is rising precipitously. There are reports that one recently released inmate, who contracted COVID-19 in the facility, has died. The situation is dire.
The Weld County Jail has been an outlier in its lax and inadequate response to the COVID-19 pandemic. While other jails throughout Colorado have depopulated their jails by 50% or more to allow for adequate physical distancing among inmates, Weld County is still housing inmates in cells with up to nine inmates within a few feet of one another. Until just days ago, inmates ate and recreated shoulder-to-shoulder, with no efforts at physical distancing, even as several inmates showed symptoms consistent with COVID19. Now, with confirmed cases, inmates are on lockdown twenty-three hours per day with some non-symptomatic inmates locked in cells with sick inmates. Only those who are very sick are quarantined. The rest are left in packed cells to spread the virus amongst
3 @SteveReamsForWeldCountySheriff, Facebook (Mar. 24, 2020 1:49 PM), https://www.facebook.com/SteveReamsForWeldCountySheriff/posts/1524469844396739 ?__tn__=-R
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 54
themselves and to others. Inmates still share common toilets and do not have regular access to hand soap, which has allowed the disease to be pollinated from a single vector to every single cell in the jail (where, again, multiple individuals are confined for twentythree hours a day within feet of one another). Defendant has refused to provide basic hygiene products to inmates and has actively denied them from protecting themselves, and others, by wearing masks.
“The best way to prevent illness is to avoid being exposed to [COVID-19].”4 The clear medical consensus is that to avoid exposure certain steps must be taken: physical distancing, wearing a facemask, testing for the virus, and ensuring that surfaces are adequately sanitized. Defendant has the mechanisms available to ensure that inmates at the Weld County Jail are not exposed to the virus. But he has instead chosen to actively reject the risk to inmates at the outset and has only recently taken mild action in response to a full-blown crisis.
Every day, more and more courts are holding that COVID-19 presents serious health risks to inmates, guards, and the community at large. See, e.g., Jimenez v. Wolf, No. 18-10225-MLW (D. Mass. Mar. 26, 2020) (ordering release of immigrant detainee in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and noting that “being in a jail enhances risk” and that in jail “social distancing is difficult or impossible”); United States v. Stephens, No. 15-cr-95-AJN, 2020 WL 1295155, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020) (ordering the release of inmate in Federal Bureau of Prisons custody due, in part, to risk posed by COVID-19
4 Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): How to Protect Yourself, CDC, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-gettingsick/prevention.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronaviru s%2F2019- ncov%2Fprepare%2Fprevention.html (last visited Apr. 3, 2020).
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 54
in the facility); In the Matter of the Extradition of Alejandro Toledo Manrique, No. 19mj-71055, 2020 WL 1307109, at *1 (N. D. Cal. March 19, 2020) (ordering change to conditions of bail for an individual to postpone incarceration, in part, in light of risk of vulnerability to the coronavirus); United States v. Barkman, No. 3:19-cr-0052-RCJWGC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45628 (D. Nev. Mar. 17, 2020); Coronel v. Decker, No. 20-cv-2472 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2020) (finding “likelihood of success on the[ ] claim the Government’s actions constitute deliberate indifference to Petitioners’ medical needs”); Basank v. Decker, No. 20-cv-2518 (AN) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2020) (finding likelihood of success, granting TRO, and ordering immediate release on recognizance of petitioners); Thakker, et al. v. Doll, et al., No. 20 C 0480, Dkt. 47 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2020) (same); Hope, et al. v. Doll, No. 1:20-cv-00562-JEJ, Dkt. 11 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 7, 2020) (same). This growing drumbeat in the federal courts makes clear that this pandemic is the paradigmatic situation in which decisive emergency relief from our third branch of government is necessary and just.
To ensure that these vulnerable prisoners are not forced to die because of Defendant’s inaction, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court provisionally certify Plaintiffs’ proposed class, grant Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order, and order the below-outlined relief. The public interest in avoiding devastation in Weld County, along with the protections afforded to detainees by the United States Constitution, demands these actions be taken swiftly in these unprecedented times. 2. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Plaintiffs ask that this Court order Defendant to implement a plan that will rectify the violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and save their lives. This plan must ensure
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 54
that Plaintiffs are protected from the threat of COVID-19 exposure by compliance with public health guidelines. Important parts of this plan should include the following: 1. Defendant should be required to physically distance all inmates from one another and
staff within the Weld County Jail, which necessitates at least six feet of distance between individuals at all times; 2. Defendant should be required to, on a daily basis, thoroughly and professionally disinfect and sanitize the Weld County Jail. 3. Defendant must provide hygiene supplies, including supplies to wash hands and disinfect common areas, to inmates at all times and free of charge; 4. Defendant must provide personal protection equipment, including but not limited to masks, to all staff members and inmates; 5. Defendant must take particularly heightened precautions with respect to food handling and delivery, such as ensuring that people who come into contact with food are not displaying any potential symptoms of COVID-19, have not recently been in contact with people displaying potential symptoms of COVID-19, and people who come into contact with food wear appropriate personal protective at all times when in contact with food (including but not limited to appropriate masks and gloves); 6. Defendant must implement appropriate policies and protocols to identify inmates who are possibly carrying COVID-19 and quarantine those inmates from other individuals; and 7. Defendant must provide accurate, up-to-date educational and informational materials regarding sanitation and prevention of COVID-19, the status of how COVID-19 is
6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 54
affecting the facility including the number of infected inmates and staff, and daily access to news reports regarding COVID-19.
Should Defendant not be able to ensure that Plaintiffs are protected from COVID19 exposure through physical distancing, Plaintiffs alternatively ask this Court to order the transfer of a sufficient number of inmates to electronic home monitoring to allow for appropriate physical distancing within the Weld County Jail. 3. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3.1 The COVID-19 outbreak has created a global health emergency. We are living in the midst of an extreme worldwide health emergency caused by the rapid spread of COVID-19. The World Health Organization has declared COVID-19 to be a global pandemic.5 On March 10, 2020, Governor Jared Polis issued a proclamation declaring a disaster in the State of Colorado.6 On March 13, 2020, President Trump declared a national emergency.7 The number of known COVID-19 infections is increasing daily. As of April 6, 2020, there were more than 1,210,956 reported COVID-19 cases throughout the world
5 Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) situation reports, World Health Organization, https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports (last visited Apr. 5, 2020). 6 Executive Order Declaring Emergency Due to the Presence of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Colorado (March 10, 2020), available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1szJfU9WF36-lCVgRhXMAnJdlQyTSG83e/view. 7 Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak (Mar. 13, 2020), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidentialactions/proclamation-declaring-nationalemergency-concerning-novel-coronavirus-disease-covid-19- outbreak/ (last visited Apr. 3, 2020).
7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 54
with more than 67,500 deaths from the virus.8 In the United States alone, there are over
186,000 confirmed cases and over 3,600 deaths.9
The number of COVID-19 cases in the United States and Colorado is expected to
continue its exponential growth. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(“CDC”) projects that without swift and effective public health interventions, over 200
million people in the U.S. could be infected with COVID-19 over the course of the
epidemic, with as many as 1.7 million deaths.10
Colorado is considered a new hot spot for spread of the disease, with over 5,000
confirmed cases in Colorado, nearly 1,000 hospitalizations and 150 confirmed deaths.11
As of April 2, it was reported that Colorado’s COVID-19 death rate was rising faster than
any other state.12 Governor Polis believes that the actual number of cases is likely four to
ten times higher than reported because of a lack of widespread testing.13
8 Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report – 72, World Health Organization (April 3, 2020), available at https://www.who.int/docs/defaultsource/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200401-sitrep-72-covid19.pdf?sfvrsn=3dd8971b_2 (last visited Apr. 3, 2020). 9 Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Cases in U.S., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/casesinus.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019ncov%2Fcasesin-us.html (last visited Apr. 3, 2020). 10 Sheri Fink, Worst-Case Estimates for U.S. Coronavirus Deaths, The New York Times, (Mar. 13, 2020), available at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/us/coronavirusdeaths-estimate.html (last visited Apr. 3, 2020). 11 See COVID-19 Case Data, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT, https://covid19.colorado.gov/case-data (last visited Apr. 7, 2020). 12 See Toby Keith, Governor says Colorado’s COVID-19 death rate is rising faster than any other state, asks for help from vice president, KKTV 11, https://www.kktv.com/content/news/Governor-says-Colorados--569337551.html. 13 Sam Tabachnik, Between 13,000 and 33,000 Coloradans could have coronavirus right now, health officials estimate, DENVER POST, https://www.denverpost.com/2020/04/02/coronavirus-colorado-covid-cases-surge-polis/.
8

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 54
COVID-19 is a particularly contagious disease. A recent study showed that the
virus can survive for up to three hours in the air, four hours on a copper surface, up to
twenty-four hours on cardboard, and up to two to three days on plastic and stainless steel.14 Indeed, a new study of an early cluster of COVID-19 cases in Wuhan, China
revealed the dangers of indirect transmission resulting from infected people contaminating common surfaces—in the study, it was a communal mall bathroom.15
Controlling the spread of COVID-19 is made even more difficult because of the
prominence of asymptomatic transmission—people who are contagious but who exhibit
no symptoms, rendering ineffective any screening tools dependent on identifying disease symptoms.16
There is no known vaccine or cure for COVID-19. No one is immune. Common symptoms of COVID-19 include fever, cough, and shortness of breath.17 Other symptoms include congestion, sneezing, fatigue, or diarrhea.18 Many individuals who become
infected with COVID-19 may have mild or moderate symptoms; some may experience
no symptoms at all. Other patients may experience severe symptoms requiring intensive
14 Novel Coronavirus Can live on Some Surfaces for Up to 3 Days, New Tests Show, TIME, available at https://time.com/5801278/coronavirus-stays-on-surfaces-days-tests/ (last visited Apr. 3, 2020). 15 Cai J, Sun W, Huang J, Gamber M, Wu J, He G. Indirect virus transmission in cluster of COVlD-19 Cases, Wenzhou, China, 2020. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Jun., available at https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0412_article (last visited Apr. 3, 2020). 16 Johnny Milano, Infected but Feeling Fine: The Unwitting Coronavirus Spreaders, NEW YORK TIMES, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/31/health/coronavirus-asymptomatictransmission.html (last visited Apr. 3, 2020). 17 Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), Symptoms of Coronavirus, CDC, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html (last visited Apr. 3, 2020). 18 Q&A on Coronaviruses (COVID-19), World Health Organization, https://www.who.int/newsroom/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses (last visited Apr. 3, 2020).
9

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 54
medical intervention.19 However, even with hospitalization and intensive treatment, thousands of individuals have died as a result of this infection. Regardless of the type of severity of symptoms, all infected persons are contagious and can rapidly transmit the virus from person to person without proper public health interventions.20 The virus is known to spread from person to person through respiratory droplets, close personal contact, and from contact with contaminated surfaces and objects.21
The need for care, including intensive care, and the likelihood of death, is much higher from COVID-19 infection than from other viruses, including common influenza.22 According to recent estimates, the fatality rate of people infected with COVID-19 is about ten times higher than a severe seasonal influenza, even in advanced countries with highly effective health care systems. For people in the highest risk populations, the fatality rate of COVID-19 infection is about fifteen percent.
People over the age of fifty-five face substantially increased risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19. In a February 29, 2020 WHO-China Joint Mission Report, the preliminary mortality rate analyses showed that individuals age 70-79 had an overall 8% mortality rate, individuals age 60-69 had a 3.6% mortality rate, and individuals age 50-59
19 Id. 20 Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): How It Spreads, CDC, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/howcovidspreads.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus %2F2019-ncov%2Fprepare%2Ftransmission.html (last visited Apr. 3, 2020). 21 Id. 22 Betsy McKay, Coronavirus vs. Flu Which Virus is Deadlier, WALL ST. J. (Mar. 10, 2020, 12:49 PM), https://cutt.ly/itEmi8j.
10

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 54
had a 1.3% mortality rate.23 People of any age who suffer from certain underlying medical conditions are also at elevated risk, including people with respiratory conditions including chronic lung disease or moderate to severe asthma; people with heart disease or other heart conditions; people who are immunocompromised as a result of cancer, HIV/AIDS, or any other condition or related to treatment for a medical condition; people with chronic liver or kidney disease or renal failure (including hepatitis and dialysis patients); people with diabetes, epilepsy, hypertension, blood disorders (including sickle cell disease), inherited metabolic disorders; and people who have had or are at risk of stroke.24 The WHO-China Joint Mission Report indicates that the mortality rate for those with cardiovascular disease was 13.2%, 9.2% for diabetes, 8.4% for hypertension, 8.0% for chronic respiratory disease, and 7.6% for cancer.25
For these vulnerable populations, the symptoms of COVID-19, particularly shortness of breath, can be severe and complications can manifest at an alarming pace. Most people in higher risk categories who develop serious illness will need advanced
23 Age, Sex, Existing Conditions of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths Chart, https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/ (date analysis based on WHO-China Joint Mission Report) 24 Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): People Who Need Extra Precautions, CDC, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-athigherrisk.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2 F2019- ncov%2Fspecific-groups%2Fhigh-risk-complications.html (last visited Apr. 3, 2020). 25 Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), World Health Organization (Feb. 28, 2020), at 12, https://www.who.int/docs/defaultsource/coronaviruse/whochina-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf.
11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 54
support. This level of supportive care requires expensive and specialized equipment, including ventilators, that are in limited supply.26
Increasingly, and in the United States in particular, even some younger and healthier people who contract COVID-19 may require hospitalization for supportive care, including intravenous fluids and supplemental oxygen. Medical providers and medical facilities are in peril of becoming completely overwhelmed and beyond capacity to provide this type of intensive care as COVID-19 continues to spread.
Even for those who survive COVID-19, recent clinical evidence indicates that, in persons who suffer severe symptoms, the virus may also cause damage to organs such as the heart, the liver, and the kidneys, as well as to organ systems such as the blood and the immune system. This damage is so extensive and severe that it may be enduring. Among other things, patients who suffer severe symptoms from COVID-19 end up with damage to the walls and air sacs of their lungs, leaving debris in the lungs and causing the walls of lung capillaries to thicken so that they are less able to transfer oxygen going forward. Indeed studies of some recovered patients in China and Hong Kong indicate a declined lung function of 20% to 30% after recovery.27
3.2 Incarcerated individuals are particularly vulnerable to infection from COVID-19.
26 Sarah, Kliff, et al., There Aren’t Enough Ventilators to Cope With the Coronavirus, THE NEW YORK TIMES (March 26, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/business/coronavirus-ventilator-shortage.html. 27 Tianbing Wang, et al., Comorbidities and Multi-Organ Injuries in the Treatment of COVID-19, 395 Lancet 10228 (2020), available at https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140- 6736(20)30558-4/fulltext; George Washington University Hospital, GW Hospital Uses Innovative VR Technology to Assess Its First COVID-19 Patient, https://www.gwhospital.com/resources/podcasts/covid19-vr-technology (last visited Apr. 3, 2020).
12

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 54
The overwhelming consensus of public health authorities and experts—including
doctors contracted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security—is that inmates have a
particular vulnerability to COVID-19, and the same physical distancing being employed in the community is necessary to avert catastrophic consequences.28 And, this is evident
from real world examples. Some jails in other states have already experienced serious
outbreaks. On March 23, 2020, at the Cook County jail in Chicago, there were two positive diagnoses.29 One week later, 101 incarcerated people and a dozen sheriff’s deputies had tested positive.30 At Rikers’ Island, for example, the infection rate is nearly
eight times the rate of infection for New York City, and 73 times higher than the national infection rate.31
“Congregate settings such as jails and prisons allow for rapid spread of infectious
diseases that are transmitted person to person, especially those passed by droplets through
coughing and sneezing.” Exhibit 1, Dr. Jaimie Meyer Expert Declaration, p. 2. When
people must share dining halls, bathrooms, showers, and other common areas, the
28 Letter from Scott A. Allen, MD and Josiah Rich, MD, MPH to Congressional Committee Chairpersons, dated Mar. 19, 2020, available at https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6816336/032020-Letter-From-Drs-AllenRichto-Congress-Re.pdf (stating that “the need to implement immediate social distancing to reduce the likelihood of exposure to detainees, facility personnel, and the general public, [requires the consideration of] releasing all detainees who do not pose an immediate risk to public safety.” (emphasis in original)). 29 Two Cook County Jail detainees test positive for coronavirus, Chicago Sun Times (Mar. 23, 2020), https://chicago.suntimes.com/2020/3/23/21191438/twocook-county-jaildetainees-test-positive-covid-19-coronavirus 30 101 inmates at Cook County Jail confirmed positive for COVID-19, Chicago Sun Times (Mar. 30, 2020), https://chicago.suntimes.com/coronavirus/2020/3/29/21199 171/cook-county-jail-coronavirus-positive-101-cases-covid-19 31 See Legal Aid Society, COVID-19 Infection Tracking in NYC Jails, available at https://www.legalaidnyc.org/covid-19-infection-tracking-in-nyc-jails/ (last visited Apr. 3, 2020).
13

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 54
opportunities for transmission are greater. infectious diseases, particularly airborne diseases, such as COVID-19, are more likely to spread rapidly between individuals in correctional facilities. Id.; see also Exhibit 2, Expert Report of Carlos Franco-Paredes, M.D., M.P.H.
People incarcerated in jails and prisons are more susceptible to acquiring and experiencing complications from infectious diseases than the population in the community.32 This is because people in jails are more likely than people in the community to have chronic underlying health conditions, including diabetes, heart disease, chronic lung disease, chronic liver disease, and lower immune systems from HIV. Ex. 1, p. 3. According to data released daily by the Bureau of prisons, COVID-19 is spreading nearly seven time faster inside BOP facilities than the exponential growth seen in the general public.33
32 Active case finding for communicable diseases in prisons, 391 The Lancet 2186 (2018), https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)312510/fulltext. 33 BOP-Reported Positive Tests for COVID-19 Nationwide, Federal Defenders of NY (https://federaldefendersny.org/) (last visited Apr. 7, 2020).
14

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 54
Additionally, the Weld County Jail lacks an adequate medical care infrastructure to address the spread of infectious disease, like COVID-19, and to treat high-risk people in custody. Prison health units are not equipped with sufficient emergency medical equipment, such as oxygen tanks, nasal cannulae, and oxygen face masks, to respond to an outbreak of patients with respiratory distress. For these reasons, among others, experts have warned that, “widespread community transmission of COVID-19 within a correctional institution is likely to result in a disproportionately high COVID-19 mortality rate.”34 Jails rely on outside community hospitals to provide more advanced and intensive medical care, and during an epidemic, this will not be possible, as those outside facilities will likely be at or over capacity themselves.
The Weld County Jail is not a closed environment. By necessity, members of the community, including correctional officers, medical personnel, and many others must enter and leave the Weld County Jail on a daily basis. Staff arrive and leave each facility three times a day in large numbers. As the COVID-19 virus spreads within the jail, staff as well as inmates are at heightened risk of contracting the virus and, in turn, spreading the virus to others with whom they come in contact in their own homes and neighborhoods.
3.3 Implementing physical distancing is the only meaningfully way to prevent the harm caused by COVID-19 in the Weld County Jail and its surrounding community.
34 “COVID-19 in Correctional Settings: Unique Challenges and Proposed Responses” (March 23, 2020), https://amend.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/COVID-in-CorrectionsChallenges-and-Solutions1.pdf; see also “Correctional Facilities In The Shadow Of COVID-19: Unique Challenges And Proposed Solutions,” Health Affairs Blog, March 26, 2020, available at https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200324.784502/full/ (last visited Apr. 3, 2020).
15

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 54
The only way to prevent complications and the enormous risk of serious illness or death to medically vulnerable people is to prevent them from becoming infected. Everyone is at risk of transmission of COVID-19. There is no available vaccine to protect against infection from COVID-19 and no medications approved to treat it.35 The CDC and other public health agencies have universally prescribed physical distancing—every person should remain at a distance of at least six feet from every other person—and rigorous hygiene—including regular and thorough hand washing with soap and water, the use of alcohol-based hand sanitizer, proper sneeze and cough etiquette, and frequent cleaning of all surfaces—as the only ways to meaningfully mitigate the spread of this virus.36 Ex. 1, p. 2 (stating that “[w]hen infectious diseases are transmitted from person to person by droplets, the best initial strategy is to practice social distancing.”).
The CDC has issued guidance that gatherings of more than 10 people must not occur.37 People in congregate environments, which are places where far more than 10 people live, eat, and sleep in close proximity, face increased danger of contracting COVID-19, as already evidenced by the rapid spread of the virus in cruise ships and nursing homes. The CDC also warns of “community spread” where the virus spreads
35 Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Situation Summary, CDC, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/summary.html (lasted visited Mar. 29, 2020) 36 Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): How to Protect Yourself, CDC, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-gettingsick/prevention.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronaviru s%2F2019- ncov%2Fprepare%2Fprevention.html (last visited Apr. 3, 2020). 37 Interim Guidance for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), Guidance as of 3/15/2020, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/large-events/mass-gatheringsready-for-covid19.html (last visited Apr. 3, 2020).
16

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 54
easily and sustainably within a community where the source of the infection is unknown.38
Proactive risk mitigation, including eliminating close contact in congregate environments, is the only effective way to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 infection. Ex. 2. In fact, a study published in the Journal of Travel Medicine found that the number of COVID-19 cases on the Diamond Princess cruise ship would have been more than eight times lower if the ship had been evacuated in a timely manner, rather than requiring the passengers to quarantine within the close confines of the ship. Ex. 2.39
Colorado officials have recognized COVID-19’s unique threat to those cycled through the criminal justice system and have taken steps to reduce prison populations. Governor Polis has issued executive orders aimed at reducing the population of prisoners in the Colorado Department of Corrections to “facilitate the reduction of the population of incarcerated persons and parolees to prevent an outbreak in prisons,”40 Governor Polis also issued guidance in which he stated that “reducing the numbers of those arrested or
38 Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): How Coronavirus Spreads, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covidspreads.html (last visited Apr. 3, 2020). 39 Sandoiu, supra (citing Rocklov J., Sjodin H., Wilder-Smith A., COVID-19 Outbreak on the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship: Estimating the Epidemic Potential and Effectiveness of Public Health Countermeasures, Journal of Travel Medicine (Feb. 28, 2020), https://academic.oup.com/jtm/advancearticle/doi/10.1093/jtm/taaa030/5766334 (last visited Apr. 3, 2020). 40 State of Colorado, Executive Order D 2020 016, March 25, 2020, at pg. 2, available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/18o0yWHzZleHJ87hmgLuBmXwpM8R74Q5x/view (last visited Apr. 3, 2020).
17

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 54
incarcerated is vital to our efforts to limit and prevent the spread of COVID-19 in our communities, detention centers, and prisons.”41
The need to address the COVID-19 problem in prisons has been recognized on a national level. The COVID-19 stimulus package passed by Congress specifically includes funding for federal prisons to purchase personal protective gear and tests kits for COVID19 because of the “density of the inmate population, the high traffic, the high volume of inmates, [and] the high rate of turnover of inmates and personnel.”42 The bill authorizes the Attorney General to lengthen the maximum amount of time that a federal prisoner can be placed in home confinement during the pandemic.43 On March 30, 2020, the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary recommended a similar plan of action, calling on the federal Bureau of Prisons to drastically increase its physical distancing efforts, including through release where viable, and through increased use of home detention.44
Echoing the calls of advocates and medical professionals, a group of 35 elected prosecutors have called on leaders within the criminal legal system to implement physical distancing by “dramatically reduc[ing] the number of incarcerated individuals and the
41 State of Colorado, Guidance To Counties, Municipalities, Law Enforcement Agencies, and Detention Centers, March 24, 2020, p. 1, available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1q7wkqi-NeU5nmuFcBQwn-6CryTKdYJ5P/view (last visited Apr. 3, 2020). 42 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) H.R. 748, at 633 (2020), available at https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6819239/FINALFINAL-CARES-ACT.pdf (last visited Apr. 3, 2020). 43 Id. at 634. 44 March 30, 2020 letter, available at https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/3.30.20_letter_to_ag_barr_re_covid19.pdf?utm _source=The+M arshall+Project+Newsletter&utm_campaign=e6df8704efEMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_03_31_11_34&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5e02cda d9de6df8704ef-174272961 (last visited Apr. 3, 2020)
18

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 54
threat of disastrous outbreaks.”45 Days later, over 400 former United States Attorneys,
Department of Justice leaders and attorneys, and judges urged that federal prisons
implement physical distancing through the release vulnerable individuals from custody to
avoid the inevitable deadly outbreak of COVID-19.46
Across the country, several counties with significant jail populations have
undertaken measures to ensure physical distancing of their inmates. Jail populations were
reduced within a matter of weeks, or sometimes days. Cleveland, Ohio drastically
reduced the Cuyahoga County jail’s population by 35 percent by releasing over 700
people from detention.47 In Minnesota, the Hennepin County jail released 26 percent of
the individuals detained.48 In Arkansas, the jail population in Washington County is
likely to reduce by over 40 percent: from more than 800 a few months ago to below
450.49
45 Fair and Just Prosecution, Joint Statement from Elected Prosecutors on COVID19 and Addressing the Rights and Needs of Those in Custody (Mar. 2020), https://fairandjustprosecution.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/03/Coronavirus-Sign-OnLetter.pdf (last visited Apr. 3, 2020) 46 Fair and Just Prosecution, Over 400 Former US Attorneys, DOJ Leaders and Attorneys, and Judges Urge President Trump to Release Vulnerable Individuals from Federal Custody to Avoid Deadly Outbreak of COVID-19 (Mar. 2020), https://fairandjustprosecution.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Trump-COVID19-PressRelease-Final.pdf. 47 Officials taking steps to reduce county jail populations in Ohio, AP, WBNS (Mar. 21, 2020), available at https://www.10tv.com/article/officials-taking-steps-reduce-countyjail-populations-ohio2020-mar (last visited Apr. 3, 2020). 48 Coronavirus In Minnesota: Hennepin County Jail Population Cut By 26% After Release Of Low-Risk Inmates To Prevent COVID-19 Spread, CBS MINNESOTA (Mar. 23, 2020), available at https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/03/23/coronavirus-in-minnesotahennepin-county-jail-populationcut-by-26-after-release-of-low-risk-inmates-to-preventcovid-19/ (last visited Apr. 3, 2020). 49 Tom Sissom, Washington County jail plans for release of 81 more inmates, NORTHWEST ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE (Mar. 26, 2020), available at
19

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 54
Colorado counties have followed suit from Boulder to Jefferson50 to Denver County.51 There have been a few holdouts, including Weld County, who continue to endanger the lives of those in their jails and communities. Weld County is amongst the worst offenders, led by Defendant Sheriff Reams.
3.4 Weld County is abjectly failing to take the necessary precautions to reduce the spread of COVID-19 within the jail and surrounding communities, placing people at a significantly increased risk of disease and death.
Weld County is a hot spot for the COVID-19 outbreak in Colorado, with the fourth highest number of COVID-19 infections in the state and the second highest number of deaths.52 With twenty-six COVID-19 related deaths as of April 6, 2020, Weld County has the second highest number of deaths compared to any other county in the state, surpassing Denver.53
Jails are not hermetically sealed—quite the opposite. Jail populations shift significantly each day as people are arrested and released. The people who go in—from correctional and medical staff, to those detained prior to trial, to those serving short
https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2020/mar/26/washington-county-jail-plans-release-81more-inmat/ (last visited Apr. 3, 2020). 50 Jefferson County Detention Center has reduced its population by 43%. See Elise Schmelzer, Colorado’s biggest jails drop population by a third as sheriffs combat spread of coronavirus, THE DENVER POST, https://www.denverpost.com/2020/04/01/coloradojails-inmate-release-coronavirus-covid/. 51 Denver County’s Correctional Facilities have reduced their population by 37%. Id. 52 See COVID-19 Case Data, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT, https://covid19.colorado.gov/case-data (last visited Apr. 7, 2020). 53 COVID-19 Case Data, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT, https://covid19.colorado.gov/case-data (last visited Apr. 7, 2020).
20

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 54
sentences—typically come out in very short order. In Weld County, on average 30 people are released from jail custody every day.54
Failing to prevent and mitigate the spread of COVID-19 endangers not only those within the institution, but the entire community. Hence, immediate and aggressive action is an essential mitigation effort that the Weld County Jail must undertake to comport with public health guidance and to prevent a catastrophic outbreak at the facility. Yet, it has failed to do so.
Defendant has demonstrated throughout this crisis an unwillingness or inability to safely care for people in his custody. For weeks, Defendant cavalierly refused to take any apparent precautions whatsoever within the facility. Defendant did not test for COVID19, even after inmates began showing symptoms consistent with the virus. He implemented no physical distancing. And inadequate sanitation was widespread in his jail. Defendant has scoffed at Gubernatorial guidance and actions by the Department of Corrections to depopulate the jails in order to allow for physical distancing.55 He has even posted on social media a “Get out of Jail Free Card” from the child’s board game Monopoly to underscore his disagreement with actions to depopulate jails in order to
54 HB 19-1297: Jail Data, Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/Data/Data_Instruments/HB1297/Dashboard/HB191297.html. 55 See, e.g., Erik Maulbetsch, Weld Sheriff: I’d Rather Take My Risk With the Virus Than Socialism, (Mar. 25, 2020) https://coloradotimesrecorder.com/2020/03/weld-sheriff-idrather-take-my-risk-with-the-virus-than-socialism/22199/.
21

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 54
allow physical distancing.56 Defendant has further boasted that, despite all public health recommendations to the contrary, he can manage the virus without releasing inmates.57
Weld County is the sixth most populous jail in Colorado. Of the ten most populous Colorado jails, Weld County Jail stands out as having the lowest depopulation rate since the start of the COVID-19 crisis and the highest jail occupancy rate.58 Unlike many other Colorado sheriffs, Defendant has refused to take the public health risk or data seriously.
As a result of these failures, at least one inmate and two staff tested positive for COVID-19 by no later than April 1, 2020. The infected inmate had been at the jail for over a year, so it is very likely that there is internal spread within the jail. More recent reports indicate that multiple inmates and deputies have tested positive with dozens more inmates showing symptoms consistent with COVID-19. Exhibit 3, Declaration of Michael Ward; Exhibit 4, Declaration of Thomas Carranza.59 The infection is now almost certainly widespread in the Weld County Jail.
56 See @SteveReamsForWeldCountySheriff, Facebook (Mar. 24, 2020 1:49 PM), https://www.facebook.com/SteveReamsForWeldCountySheriff/posts/1524469844396739 ?__tn__=-R 57 Id. (“I haven’t closed the Weld County Jail nor have I started releasing prisoners because of the Covid 19 virus; and I don’t intend to do so. The Weld County Jail has very competent and effective medical staff to handle this crisis and we will work closely with the Weld County Health Department to get through these tough times if the need arises.”). 58 This data was collected by the ACLU of Colorado through daily phone talls to Colorado’s ten most populous jails since March 24, 2020. 59 These declarations are submitted with electronic signatures because of the unique challenges that COVID-19 has presented to Plaintiffs’ attorneys being in the same room as Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ counsel has received permission from Mr. Ward and Mr. Carranza to file the attached declarations with their electronic signatures.
22

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 54
Inmates at the Weld County Jail are housed in a pod with at least forty and up to sixty other people. Ex. 3, p. 1; Ex. 4, p. 1. There are up to nine people per cell and many cells have six inmates housed in them. Id. Even when inmates are not housed in a cell with nine other inmates, they are confined with multiple other inmates. Id. Inmates share a small space and sleep on triple bunk beds. Inmates sleep right on top of each other, within a couple feet. The cells are small and it’s impossible for inmates to stay six feet away from other people within the cells. Ex. 3, p. 2. For cells housing six inmates, three inmates will share a bunk with three beds stacked on top of each other, while the other three share the same. Ex. 4, p. 2. Three bunked inmates sleep within two to four feet of each other. Id. The cells are about twelve feet by ten feet. Id. Even when only one other person is in the cell, if the inmates move at all it is still impossible to stay six feet away from one other. Id.
Each pod has four toilets, and for males four urinals, shared by all of the inmates in the pod. Ex. 3, p. 1; Ex. 4, p. 1. The toilets and urinals are located in common spaces. The cells in the jail are “dry” and have no toilets or urinals. Id. To use the bathroom, inmates must their cells and go to the shared toilets. Id. There is no drinking water in the cells either, and all inmates share two water fountains. Ex. 3, p. 2. Inmates must ask the deputy to leave our cell to use the water fountains.
Many inmates in the Weld County Jail are sick or have been sick. Ex. 4, p. 2.; Ex. 3, p. 2. Inmates have symptoms like coughing, fevers, being tired and achy, sore throat, and shortness of breath. Most of the inmates who have reported symptoms haven’t been tested for COVID-19. Ex. 3, p. 2.
23

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 54
Some inmates do not have symptoms and are not sick, but all inmates are housed together in the same pods and cells. Ex. 4, p. 2. Sick inmates are housed in the same pod, sharing the same common spaces, toilets, urinals, and other facilities, as those who do not have symptoms. Id.
Several days ago, the jail started a twenty-three-hour lockdown. Ex. 4, p. 2; Ex. 3, p. 2-3. Still, guards open two cells for an hour at a time; so about twelve to eighteen of the inmates are out at any given time and in close proximity at the same time. Id. Guards also let inmates on lockdown come and go to use the toilet because the cells are dry, or for other reasons (for example, to use the phone), so there are times that there are twenty or more inmates in the common area in close proximity to one another. Id. Even with the lockdown in place, inmates are still housed in groups with as many as nine per cell and it is still impossible for inmates to stay six feet away from others. Ex. 4, p. 3; Ex. 3, p. 3
Even after the lockdown was implemented, inmates still share common spaces, use the same toilets, urinals, and restroom facilities, touch the same surfaces, use the same chairs and tables in the common areas, use the same phones, and come into contact with one another when they leave their cells. Ex. 4, p. 2-3; Ex. 3, p. 3. Inmates are also allowed to exchange food and can go from room to room. Ex. 4, p. 2-3. There have been reports of at least one inmate urinating in a drinking cup because they wouldn’t let him out of his cell to use the toilet during a lockdown period. Ex. 3, p. 3.
The jail does not sanitize or disinfect the common areas in between usages, including the toilet, restroom, and other common areas. Ex. 3, p. 3; Ex. 4, p. 3. Occasionally Weld County personnel will sanitize certain areas or a trustee will do a quick wipe-down, but not completely and jail personnel do not sanitize or clean all areas.
24

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 54
Id. Many areas, including the water fountain, toilet stall areas, railings, shower areas, and other surfaces almost never get wiped down or sanitized, and definitely not in between every usage. Id.
The jail isn’t removing sick inmates from the pods unless they have at least four symptoms of COVID-19. Ex. 4, p. 3; Ex. 3, p. 3. Weld County Jail personnel have posted a sign stating that an inmate must have at least four symptoms to be quarantined. Id. Inmates who have actually been quarantined for potential COVID-19 have displayed symptoms for weeks before being quarantined (and had tested negative for the flu and strep throat during those weeks). Ex. 3, p. 2
Inmates that have been sick are still allowed to work in the kitchen and handle food. Ex. 4, p. 3. Given that the jail feeds at least five hundred inmates on a daily basis, sick kitchen workers handling food and distributing trays means the entire facility may be exposed and infected.
The Weld County Jail still refuses to provide masks to inmates. Ex. 4, p. 3. Even when inmates request masks, they are denied. Id., p. 3. At least one inmate has been told that he could not wear a homemade mask and other inmates have been told that they are “inciting” the inmates by wearing a mask. Id., p. 3.
Multiple people within the Weld County Jail have tested positive for the coronavirus, including both staff and inmates. Ex. 3, p. 2. Despite this, Weld County has not tested numerous inmates displaying symptoms of COVID-19. Id.
When inmates file grievances about the jail’s failure to provide adequate care and safety due to COVID-19 inmates get a standard response stating that the grievance was
25

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 54
rejected due to a memo dated March 17, 2020, which stated that issues regarding COVID-19 precautions are not grievable. Ex. 3, p. 4.
Simply put, as Defendant is currently operating the Weld County Jail, it is dangerously under-equipped and ill-prepared to manage the current COVID-19 outbreak within the jail.
3.5 Plaintiffs are vulnerable inmates who, if exposed to COVID-19, would likely suffer severe illness or death.
Plaintiffs are all individuals who have been diagnosed with a medical condition that significantly increases the risk of a serious infection of COVID-1960 and/or of such an advanced age as to make them undoubtedly more vulnerable to COVID-19 and its symptoms. People who are considered at high risk of severe illness and death should they be infected with the coronavirus include the following:
 People age 55 or older;  Anyone diagnosed with cancer, autoimmune disease (including lupus, rheumatoid
arthritis, psoriasis, Sjogren’s, Crohn’s), chronic lung disease (including asthma, COPD, bronchiectasis, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis), history of cardiovascular disease (MI), chronic arthritis (rheumatoid, psoriatic), chronic liver or kidney disease, diabetes, hypertension, heart failure, HIV, on chronic steroids or other immunosuppressant medications for chronic conditions;  People with a history of smoking or other substance use disorders;  People who are pregnant. See Ex. 2, p. 2. The current conditions at the Weld County Jail do not allow Plaintiffs to adequately physically distance and expose them to a significant risk of serious harm. All Plaintiffs are housed, share communal toilets, and share dayrooms with other inmates. In
60 Implementation of Mitigation Strategies for Communities with Local COVID-19 Transmission, CDC, (last visited Apr. 6, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/downloads/community-mitigation-strategy.pdf.
26

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 54
these spaces, Plaintiffs have been exposed to unhygienic surfaces and staff (and other inmates) who are not wearing appropriate personal protective gear.
Plaintiff Thomas Carranza is 55 years old and suffers from asthma.61 He has been hospitalized for acute asthmatic bronchitis. In the past, he was a smoker, making his respiratory condition more vulnerable. Mr. Carranza has been advised by medical providers that he has high blood pressure but has not been properly diagnosed with that condition. Mr. Carranza is also currently suffering from an undiagnosed intestinal condition causing internal bleeding and blood in his stool. Medical staff in the jail have not provided a diagnosis or treatment for this condition.
Plaintiff Jesus Martinez is thirty-three years old and suffers from multiple chronic medical conditions. He is diabetic, has asthma, experiences shortness of breath, has high blood pressure, and is overweight. Mr. Martinez also had a corneal transplant in one eye and is currently experiencing discomfort and potential complications relating to this condition.
Plaintiff Richard Barnum is disabled. He, receives social security disability benefits, and is eligible for Medicare. Mr. Barnum has untreated Hepatitis C. Prior to his arrest, Mr. Barnum was eligible for and working to obtain treatment for Hepatitis C. Additionally, approximately five years ago, Mr. Barnum suffered major kidney failure due to stage three kidney disease. He spent one month in the hospital, which included
61 The factual recitation contained in the following paragraphs is based on Plaintiffs’ communications to counsel. Counsel is working to obtain declarations from Plaintiffs attesting to these facts but logistical issues regarding in-person access to inmates in the Weld County Jail have made this task exceedingly difficult and cumbersome. Currently, counsel is only allowed to call Plaintiffs and speak to them by phone. Counsel intends to work with the Court and its staff on a method to present Plaintiffs’ testimony remotely at the requested evidentiary hearing on this Motion.
27

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 54
dialysis treatment. He continues to regularly see a doctor to monitor his kidney issues. Mr. Barnum is a smoker who also has hypertension, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and depression.
Plaintiff Thomas Lewis is 60 years old. Mr. Lewis suffers from vitiligo, which is an immune deficiency disease. As a result of his age and medical condition, Mr. Lewis is particularly vulnerable to suffering severe effects from COVID. Physical distancing is critical for him.
Plaintiff Michael Ward suffers from high blood pressure, arthritis, fibromyalgia, and a compromised immune system from having previously contracted West Nile virus.
Plaintiff Colby Propes is forty-four years old and has a long history of smoking. He also has been diagnosed with substance abuse disorders. Both of these facts make him vulnerable to disastrous health consequences should he contract COVID-19.
Plaintiff Chad Hunter is hypoglycemic, he has a long history as a smoker, and he has a history of a substance abuse disorder
In sum, each Plaintiff is at a significant risk of dying should he contract COVID19. 4. NOTICE TO DEFENDANT
On April 7, 2020, counsel for Plaintiffs gave notice of their intent to file this action to the counsel for Defendant in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 65 and D.C.COLO.LCivR 65.1. In accordance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1, counsel for Defendant indicated that Defendant opposes the relief sought herein. 5. ARGUMENT
28

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 54
Plaintiffs are inmates in the custody of the Weld County Jail who are especially vulnerable to COVID-19 because of their advanced age or underlying medical conditions. Although the larger world has taken radical steps to contain this disease, Plaintiffs are powerless to adopt even simple protective measures. Under current conditions, it is overwhelmingly likely that hundreds of inmates will contract a lethal virus with no cure. Without urgent action, countless inmates will become seriously ill or die within a matter of weeks or months. Plaintiffs are at high-risk for death should they contract COVID-19. Plaintiffs therefore request that the Court grant injunctive relief that will protect them from threatened exposure to COVID-19 and, consequently, a death sentence.
Courts are empowered to grant temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions in class actions, the same as in other actions. See William W. Schwarzer, A. Wallace Tashima & James M. Wagstaffe, § 10:773 (nat’l ed. 2009); accord Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117-18 (9th Cir. 2004) (preliminary injunction may extend beyond named plaintiffs). This is so regardless of whether the class has yet been certified. Simer v. Rios, 661 F2d 655, 658 (7th Cir. 1981) (granting temporary restraining order within days of action’s filing); see also Yue v. Conseco Life Ins. Co., 282 F.R.D. 469, 475 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (holding that, even if a party simultaneously moves for class certification and preliminary injunction, there is no requirement to show irreparable injury and success on merits to prevail on class certification).
A plaintiff seeking interim injunctive relief “must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); see also
29

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 54
Planned Parenthood Ass’n of Utah v. Herbert, 828 F.3d 1245, 1252 (10th Cir. 2016). “[W]here the moving party has established that the three ‘harm’ factors tip decidedly in its favor, the ‘probability of success’ requirement is relaxed[.]” Star Fuel Marts, LLC v. Sam’s East, Inc., 362 F.3d 639, 652-53 (10th Cir. 2004).
Once a plaintiff demonstrates entitlement to interim relief, courts have broad power to fashion equitable remedies to address constitutional violations in prisons. Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 687 n.9 (1978). And although courts must “be sensitive to the State’s interest[s]” in imprisonment, courts “must not shrink from their obligation to enforce the constitutional rights of all persons, including prisoners [and] . . . may not allow constitutional violations to continue simply because a remedy would involve intrusion into the realm of prison administration.” Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 511 (2011); Plata v. Brown, 2013 WL 3200587, *8 (N.D. Cal., June 24, 2013) (directing removal of prisoners at risk of contracting Valley Fever from prisons where the risk of contracting it was high).
Immediate and unequivocal action by this Court is necessary. There is no vaccine or cure for COVID-19. Treatment of high-risk persons like the Plaintiffs is costly and resources are limited. Even those successfully treated have life-long damage to their lungs. As such, the only way to protect against the imminent risk of substantial harm and possible death of inmates who are most vulnerable to the virus—people with serious underlying medical conditions, and people over the age of 55—is to immediately require physical distancing of ALL inmates before they contract the virus.
Injunctive relief is necessary because the danger here, vulnerable people condemned to prolonged illness and potential death, is the quintessential irreparable
30

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 31 of 54
harm. Edmisten v. Werholtz, 287 F. App’x 728, 732-35 (10th Cir. 2008) (holding that evidence that health will “deteriorate irreparably” absent relief is sufficient to support issuance of injunctive relief); see also Jones’El v. Berge, 164 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (W.D. Wisc. 2001) (“[P]ain, suffering and the risk of death constitute ‘irreparable harm’ sufficient to support a preliminary injunction in prison cases.”). There is also an overwhelming public interest in limiting the spread of COVID-19, both to minimize further infections and to reduce strain on overwhelmed health systems. And, in light of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the balance of equities weighs heavily in favor of the vulnerable inmates, who must be allowed to physically distance, and against Defendant’s interest in indefinitely confining the Plaintiffs in life-threatening conditions. This Court should order that physical distancing be implemented at the Weld County Jail.
5.1 Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed on the Merits. Plaintiffs are likely to establish that their conditions of confinement place them at substantial risk of harm from COVID-19, in violation of their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and that Defendant is being deliberately indifferent to their obvious and serious medical needs.
5.1(a) Plaintiffs are being held under unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the Weld County Jail.
Plaintiffs are likely to establish that their conditions of confinement within the Weld County Jail custody render them at substantial risk of contracting COVID-19 and suffering prolonged injury and possible death. The Supreme Court has long held that when state officials “strip [inmates] of virtually every means of self-protection and foreclose[] their access to outside aid, [they] are not free to let the state of nature take its course.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994). State officials instead have a
31

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 32 of 54
responsibility under the Eighth Amendment62 to “take reasonable measures to guarantee
the safety of the inmates.” Id. at 832.
62 “[T]here does not exist a single ‘deliberate indifference’ standard applicable to all § 1983 claims, whether pretrial detainees or convicted prisoners bring the claim.” Abila v. Funk, 220 F. Supp. 3d 1121, 1181 (D.N.M. 2016). Prior to Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S.Ct. 2466 (2015), the Tenth Circuit held that, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, pretrial detainees are entitled to the same degree of medical care as convicted inmates are under the Eighth Amendment. Craig v. Eberly, 154 F.3d 490, 495 (10th Cir. 1998). Kingsley, however, abrogated the Tenth Circuit’s holding in Craig, concluding that Eighth Amendment culpable state of mind rules arising out of the prohibition of “wanton” punishment cannot be extended to pretrial detainees, who have a Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from all punishment. 135 S.Ct. at 2475. “The language of the two Clauses differs,” the Court reasoned, “and the nature of the claims often differs. And, most importantly, pretrial detainees (unlike convicted prisoners) cannot be punished at all . . .” Id. Because there is no requirement that a pretrial detainee demonstrate the wanton infliction of pain, “a pretrial detainee can prevail by providing only objective evidence that the challenged governmental action is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective or that it is excessive in relation to that purpose.” Id. at 2473-74 (emphasis added). Thus, “the appropriate standard for a pretrial detainee’s excessive force claim is solely an objective one.” Id. at 2473.
The implications of Kingsley are by no means limited to excessive force claims. See id. at 2473 (“The Bell Court applied [an] objective standard to evaluate a variety of prison conditions . . . . In doing so, it did not consider the prison officials’ subjective beliefs about the policy.”) (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 541-43 (1977)); Id. at 2478 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (confirming the Bell v. Wolfish standard for pretrial detainees making inhumane conditions of confinement claims). And the objective deliberate indifference standard has repeatedly been applied to conditions of confinement and inadequate medical care claims. See Gordon v. Cnty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 2018) (extending Kingsley to medical care claims); Miranda v. Cty. of Lake, 900 F.3d 335, 352 (7th Cir. 2018) (“We thus conclude, along with the Ninth and Second Circuits, that medical-care claims brought by pretrial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment are subject only to the objective unreasonableness inquiry identified in Kingsley”); Bruno v. City of Schenectady, 727 Fed. Appx. 717, 2018 WL 1357377, at *2*3 (2d Cir. 2018) (unpublished) (expressly applying an objective standard to a claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition); Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17, 35 (2d Cir. 2017) (extending Kingsley to conditions of confinement claims by pretrial detainees pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment and overruling its previous decisions applying the subjective standard to an inadequate medical care claim by a pretrial detainee); see also Richmond v. Huq, 885 F.3d 928, 938 n.3 (6th Cir. 2018) (not applying Kingsley, which neither party raised, but recognizing the “shift in Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference jurisprudence [that] calls into serious doubt whether [the plaintiff]
32

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 33 of 54
In Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993), the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment forbids deliberate indifference to conditions that “pose an unreasonable risk of serious damage to . . . future health.” Id. at 35. Helling addressed exposure to secondhand smoke, but in doing so recognized that “deliberate indifference to the exposure of inmates to a serious, communicable disease” would similarly violate the Eighth Amendment, even if a prisoner currently shows no serious symptoms. Id. at 33. To amount to the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment: (1) prison conditions must pose “an unreasonable risk,” (2) the risk must be of serious harm, and (3) prison officials must have acted with deliberate indifference to that risk of serious harm. Id. at 33–35. Plaintiffs easily satisfy all prongs.
5.1(a)(1) Plaintiffs have shown a significant likelihood that they will suffer an unreasonable risk of harm from COVID-19 if their current conditions of confinement are not abated.
Plaintiffs in this case are being detained in conditions that dramatically and unjustifiably increase the likelihood that they will contract COVID-19 and fall seriously ill.
Notably, Plaintiffs do not need to show that they are currently infected or suffering “serious health problems” to show that they face a “substantial risk” of harm. Helling, 509 U.S. at 34. The Supreme Court squarely rejected that proposition,
need even show that the individual defendant-officials were subjectively aware of her serious medical conditions and nonetheless wantonly disregarded them”); cf. Castro v. Cnty. of L.A., 833 F.3d 1060, 1070 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (extending Kingsley to failure to protect claims by pretrial detainees pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment). In any event, as herein, pretrial Plaintiffs and proposed class members face no hurdle in establishing that Defendant knew of the risk of COVID-19 and that he recklessly disregarded that risk. By meeting their burden under the Eighth Amendment, pretrial Plaintiffs and proposed class members have, by definition, met their burden under the Fourteenth Amendment, which governs their claims.
33

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 34 of 54
concluding that “[w]e have great difficulty agreeing that prison authorities may not be deliberately indifferent to an inmate’s current health problems but may ignore a condition of confinement that is sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering the next week or month or year.” Id. at 33. The Court went on: “Nor can we hold that prison officials may be deliberately indifferent to the exposure of inmates to a serious, communicable disease on the ground that the complaining inmate shows no serious current symptoms.” Id.
Inmates simply cannot maintain proper physical distancing as they are currently confined in the Weld County Jail, whether housed with large numbers of people, in a small cell with fewer people in close proximity, or even in a two-person cell. Malam v. Adducci, No. 20-10829, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59407, at *26 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 5, 2020) (“In the face of a deadly pandemic with no vaccine, no cure, limited testing capacity, and the ability to spread quickly through asymptomatic human vectors, a ‘generalized risk’ is a ‘substantial risk’ of catching the COVID-19 virus for any group of human beings in highly confined conditions[.]”). Inmates share their dayrooms, showers, and toilets, and must rely on multiple staff to prepare and deliver their meals and medications. Comm. for Pub. Counsel Servs. v. Chief Justice of the Trial Court, No. SJC-12926, 2020 Mass. LEXIS 191, at *19 (Apr. 3, 2020) (“The district attorneys of the northern, northwestern, Suffolk, and Berkshire districts agree with the petitioners that the risk of this pandemic is an unprecedented, deadly threat to incarcerated individuals, correctional officers, and civilian staff, and that extraordinary action is needed to address this rapidlygrowing public health emergency expeditiously.”). Plaintiffs are at the mercy of security
34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 35 of 54
and medical staff, who may carry the virus without showing symptoms, and who often are not able to take even simple precautions like wearing disposable gloves.
Plaintiffs are themselves at an especially high risk of harm from the virus due to the high rates of chronic, and other, health conditions. Elderly inmates and those with underlying medical conditions typically experience COVID-19 symptoms more severely and are far more likely to develop complications as a result of the virus. Inmates over the age of 55 without any underlying medical conditions face a 1.3–8% mortality rate. And as noted above, vulnerable inmates who suffer from cardiovascular disease face a 13.2% mortality rate, hypertensive inmates face an 8.4% mortality rate, and inmates with chronic respiratory disease face an 8.0% mortality rate. Additionally, individuals with certain conditions, such as those that affect the immune system, are also more likely to contract the disease and, also, more likely to die if exposed. And history teaches that when an epidemic occurs nationally, people in custody experience a disproportionately high number of cases. At least according to data from the BOP, history is repeating itself (or worse) with this virus.
COVID-19 is already in the Weld County Jail. Other district courts have granted TROs requiring the implementation of physical distancing requirements before positive COVID-19 tests in the respective facilities. Central District of California Judge Hatter granted a TRO on March 27, 2020, explaining that:
As the Court writes this order, the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in the United States has already exceeded the number of confirmed cases in every other country on this planet. Indeed, all of the experts and political leaders agree that the number of confirmed cases in the United States will only increase in the days and weeks ahead. The number of cases in the United States has yet to peak.
35

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 36 of 54
Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause at 10, Docket No. 32, Castillo v. Barr, No. 20-cv-605 (TJH) (C.D. Cal. March 27, 2020). Just a day earlier, on March 26, 2020, Southern District of New York Judge Torres recognized that “[t]he spread of COVID-19 is measured in a matter of a single day — not weeks, months, or years” and granted a TRO requiring the immediate release of ten people to ensure that they could adequately physically distance. See Basank, 2020 WL 1481503, at *5; see also Order at 1–2, United States v. Harris, Docket No. 35, No. 19-cr-356 (RDM) (D.D.C. March 26, 2020) (granting motion for emergency release from custody in light of the risks of COVID-19); Minute Order, United States v. Jaffee, 19-cr-88 (RDM) (D.D.C. March 26, 2020) (same). On March 23, 2020, a panel of Ninth Circuit judges granted emergency relief and ordered a detained person released “[i]n light of the rapidly escalating public health crisis.” Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 18-71460, Doc. No. 53 (9th Cir. Mar. 23, 2020) (unpublished).
Since these earlier63 cases, federal courts across the country have granted temporary restraining orders brought on behalf of vulnerable individuals in custody. See, e.g., Thakker, No. 20 C 0480, Dkt. 47; Flores, et al. v. Barr, et al., No. 85 C 4544, Dkt. 740 (Mar. 28, 2020); Coronel, No. 20 C 2472, Dkt. 26. In Thakker, the district court recognized that “the status quo of a mere few weeks ago no longer applies. Our world has been altered with lightning speed, and the results are both unprecedented and ghastly . . . . The choice we now make must reflect this new reality.” Thakker, No. 20 C 0480, Dkt. 47 at 24. The district court found that even though the conditions in the local federal
63 In the context of the spread of COVID-19, “earlier” is mere days. This demonstrates the infectiousness of the disease and imminent danger of mass infection.
36

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 37 of 54
detention facilities were not insufficient because of intent or malice, “should we fail to afford relief” to medically vulnerable inmates “we will be a party to an unconscionable and possibly barbaric result.” Id.; see also id. (“Our Constitution and laws apply equally to the most vulnerable among us, particularly when matters of public health are at issue.”). The district court accordingly granted a temporary restraining order that aimed at ensuring appropriate physical distancing by requiring the immediate release of 11 prisoners in federal custody who suffer from chronic medical conditions and, therefore, face a serious threat of injury or death if exposed to COVID-19. Id. at 2, 24-25.
In sum, the record evidence shows that Plaintiffs and proposed class members face a “substantial risk” of contracting COVID-19. Plaintiffs need not show, or even allege, that “the likely harm would occur immediately” or that the possible infection would “affect all of those exposed.” Helling, 509 U.S. at 33 (citing Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 682 (1978)). Plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of showing their “substantial” or “significant” risk of contracting COVID-19.
5.1(a)(2) Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the risk of harm to them is serious.
Plaintiffs have also substantially demonstrated that the risk of harm to them is serious. Put differently, the Supreme Court explained, this Court should ask “whether society considers the risk that the prisoner complains of to be so grave that it violates contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone unwillingly to such a risk.” Helling, 509 U.S. at 36.
To conclude that COVID-19 poses a risk of serious harm, the Court need look no further than the drastic way society has been reshaped in a matter of months. Businesses
37

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 38 of 54
and schools are closed.64 Travel is restricted. Even this Court’s own operations have been dramatically changed by COVID-19 in response to the well-known fact that “gatherings of people pose a threat to public health and safety[.]” Court Operations Under The Exigent Circumstances Created By COVID-19, District Court General Order 2020-3.
Moreover, applying the Supreme Court’s reference to whether “society considers the risk . . . to be so grave[,]” Helling, 509 U.S. at 36, likewise results in the inexorable conclusion that COVID-19 poses a serious risk of harm to Plaintiffs. The declarations of emergency from nearly every level of government is strong evidence COVID-19 is a risk that society considers to be grave. In declaring a national emergency on March 13, 2020, President Trump proclaimed that “[t]he spread of COVID-19 within our Nation’s communities threatens to strain our Nation’s healthcare systems.”65 Governor Polis issued an Executive Order stating in explicit terms the serious danger: “The potential spread of COVID-19 in facilities and prisons poses a significant threat to prisoners and staff who work in facilities and prisons[.]”66
Plaintiffs are particularly vulnerable given their COVID-19 co-morbidities. COVID-19 poses a significantly heightened risk of harm to those with underlying health conditions and those over 55 years old. All Plaintiffs fall into one of these categories, and
64 Rage Against the Machine, Ashes In The Fall (Epic Records 1999) (“Ain’t it funny how the factory doors close? ‘Round the time that the school doors close? ‘Round the time that a hundred thousand jail cells open up to greet you just like the reaper?”). 65 Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak (Mar. 13, 2020), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidentialactions/proclamation-declaring-nationalemergency-concerning-novel-coronavirus-disease-covid-19- outbreak/ (last visited Apr. 3, 2020). 66 State of Colorado, Executive Order D 2020 016, March 25, 2020, at pg. 1, available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/18o0yWHzZleHJ87hmgLuBmXwpM8R74Q5x/view (last visited Apr. 3, 2020).
38

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 39 of 54
a large number fall into both. Simply put, to them, COVID-19 poses a threat of death. Plata v. Brown, No. C01-1351 TEH, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90669, 2013 WL 3200587, at *10 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2013) (holding that "it would be impossible to conclude that a disease that, in its severe form, could lead to death does not present a risk of serious harm.").
For these and other reasons, courts roundly agree that COVID-19 poses a risk of serious harm. The Court in Basank pointed to “[a] number of courts in this district and elsewhere [that] have recognized the threat that COVID-19 poses to individuals held in jails and other detention facilities.” 2020 WL 1481503, *3 (citing Stephens, 2020 WL 1295155, at *2; United States v. Garlock, No. 18-cr-418 (VC), 2020 WL 1439980, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2020)). The New Jersey Supreme Court, in approving an order resulting in the release of around 1,000 people from New Jersey jails to allow for proper physical distancing within the facility, described “the profound risk posed to people in correctional facilities arising from the spread of COVID19.” In the Matter of the Request to Commute or Suspend County Jail Sentences, Case No. 84230 (N.J. March 22, 2020).
Finally, this Court also need look no further than the consensus among federal courts that exposure to tuberculosis — a less severe disease, at least in terms of mortality rate67 — is a “serious harm” for Eighth Amendment purposes. See, e.g., Jeffries v. Block, 940 F. Supp. 1509, 1514 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (citing the determination of the California Legislature that “tuberculosis is a serious contagious disease, which presents a serious risk to inmate health”); cf. Brown v. District of Columbia, 514 F.3d 1279, 1285 (D.C. Cir.
67 Studies suggest “a TB-related mortality rate of 2.1% [in the United States], which was comparable to studies in Canada.” Chou-Han Lin, Tuberculosis Mortality: Patient Characteristics and Causes, 14 BMC INFECTIOUS DISEASES (2014).
39

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 40 of 54
2008) (concluding, under the slightly different deliberate indifference to “serious medical needs” test, that gallstones were “easily” in the “category of serious medical needs,” a point conceded by the District of Columbia). Taken together, the evidence in the record, and evidence of which the Court can and should take judicial notice, supports the conclusion that COVID-19 is a serious harm.
5.1(a)(3) Defendant knows of, and has disregarded, a significant risk to Plaintiffs health and safety.
To succeed on the second prong of the Eighth Amendment test, Plaintiffs and proposed class members must show that Defendant acted with deliberate indifference to the risk posed. See Helling, 509 U.S. at 33-35. Plaintiffs may do so by showing that the identified risk was “longstanding, pervasive, well-documented, or expressly noted by prison officials in the past.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842. Plaintiffs must show both that (1) the defendant “knows of” the identified risk, and (2) the defendant “disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Both prongs are satisfied here.
There is overwhelming evidence that Defendant “knew of a substantial risk” posed by COVID-19. Defendant has posted on social media that “it wasn’t a matter of ‘if’ members of the Sheriff’s Office would potentially contract the virus but instead, ‘when.’”68 The ACLU of Colorado sent a letter to Defendant over a week ago
68 @SteveReamsForWeldCountySheriff, Facebook (Apr. 1, 2020 1:49 PM), https://www.facebook.com/SteveReamsForWeldCountySheriff/photos/a.1624067639363 94/1531739390336451/?type=3&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARBZ4io1hdRZJoR8kRHrYm 1gd48VFAE11q5vApXPwdEbwFJuO_Xnb3c6C0xf_K7l9EtahdydbF0SDNsmquaCqmIx8X2VejTEk3vTgqxJiR3bbS6bXNYU2rq2lgQoL6stJqQ3F nMt46gehk67JDRU7FqiPQ8H3vAbofmwIURGyH_7cqbmlT6OcltdlluyJ8DrwA8G4lMRRW7_fj2j6rJZSt5CjZw7S4rb8o_AIz580nZbBsbgp3Q63WSQkOpqPUne2prkqWjepsWhp9a9K8UgK4BxhqYYJ3t78twjsXpd QsmGwEh0nFUrjLKu9zFQvZMuPlOqqot1Ly-6jhTZSc2nfHw&__tn__=-R
40

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 41 of 54
demonstrating the extreme risk that COVID-19 posed to the vulnerable inmates in his jail.69
Additionally, Governor Polis issued an Executive Order a week ago that put
Defendant on notice of the risk posed: “The potential spread of COVID-19 in facilities
and prisons poses a significant threat to prisoners and staff who work in facilities and prisons[.]”70 Defendant certainly read this order, as he posted about it on social media
(while also stating that he had not “closed the Weld County Jail nor have I started releasing prisoners because of the Covid 19 virus; and I don’t intend to do so”).71
Defendant can hardly make a credible claim that he is unaware of the risk posed by
COVID-19 to correctional facilities when the Governor of this state directly outlined it. Moreover, courts have held that medical guidelines, and specifically CDC72
guidance, are persuasive authority of deliberate indifference. The CDC has released guidance73 outlining specific steps that Defendant has steadfastly refused to take. For
69 Letter To Colorado Sheriffs Regarding COVID-19, ACLU OF COLORADO (March 26, 2020), https://acluco-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/COVID-19Sheriff-Letter-3-26-2020.pdf 70 State of Colorado, Executive Order D 2020 016, March 25, 2020, at pg. 1, available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/18o0yWHzZleHJ87hmgLuBmXwpM8R74Q5x/view (last visited Apr. 3, 2020). 71 @SteveReamsForWeldCountySheriff, Facebook (Mar. 24, 2020 1:49 PM), https://www.facebook.com/SteveReamsForWeldCountySheriff/posts/1524469844396739 ?__tn__=-R 72 The Court can, and should, take judicial notice of the CDC guidance regarding COVID-19. See Wright v. Hayden, No. 5:08CV-179-R, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26399, at *7 n.1 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2009) (taking judicial notice of the CDC guidelines for the transmission of HIV); Seddens v. McGinnis, No. 91-1500, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 17945 (7th Cir. July 24, 1992) (taking judicial notice of "recent federal publications stating that AIDS cannot be transmitted through non-sexual social contact"). 73 Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), Social Distancing, Quarantine, and Isolation, CDC, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/social-
41

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 42 of 54
example, in Ferguson v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, the court relied on CDC information that “MRSA is contagious, spread by having contact with individuals or objects touched by infected individuals, and is ‘most likely to be spread where people are in close contact with others’” in holding that plaintiffs properly alleged claims for unconstitutional conditions of confinement when they stated they were held in a cell with high levels of MRSA. No. CV 11-1001 WPL/CG, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202824, at *54 (D.N.M. Apr. 2, 2013).74 And, the Tenth Circuit, Mata v. Saiz, held that “[w]hile published requirements for health care do not create constitutional rights, such protocols certainly provide circumstantial evidence that a prison health care [worker] knew of a substantial risk of serious harm.” 427 F.3d 745, 757-59 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing Howell v. Evans, 922 F.2d 712, 719 (11th Cir. 1991 ) (stating that “contemporary standards and opinions of the medical profession also are highly relevant in determining what constitutes deliberate indifference to medical care.”). The Tenth Circuit relied on established medical guidelines in holding that plaintiff had demonstrated evidence of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Id. at 758-59.
Moreover, in Hernandez v. Cty. of Monterey, the Court relied on CDC guidelines in granting a preliminary injunction based on a jail’s failure to adequately stop the spread of tuberculosis in its facility. 110 F. Supp. 3d 929, 943 (N.D. Cal. 2015). In so holding, the Court stated that “known noncompliance with generally accepted guidelines for
distancing.html (last visited Apr. 6, 2020) (stating that “[l]imiting face-to-face contact with other is the best way to reduce the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID19)”). 74 The court cited to: MRSA Infections: Causes of MRSA Infections, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (August 9, 2010), http://www.cdc.gov/mrsa/causes/index.html.
42

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 43 of 54
inmate health” such as the CDC guidelines related to tuberculosis, “strongly indicates deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm” and, therefore, “[a]t least since the CDC released its guidelines…. Defendants’ policies and practices fell below the constitutional standard of care [because] Defendants have known about the risks of harm but have not changed their practices.” Id.
Further, the same acts underlying Defendant’s failure to act here have been found to constitute deliberate indifference in similar cases. Again, in Ferguson, the court held that the plaintiffs properly alleged that the jail officials knew of the presence of MRSA (and plaintiffs complained about it) and the jail officials took no actions to limit the plaintiffs’ exposure, showing deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202824, at *20-21. In doing so, the court concluded that “the right to be free from confinement in a cell with other inmates known to be carrying contagious, harmful diseases” was clearly established. Id. at *54-55. Additionally, in Feliciano v. Gonzales, 13 F. Supp. 2d 151 (D.P.R. 1998), the Court found that the defendant’s “inability . . . to properly isolate cases of active tuberculosis,” the “insufficient medical dormitory beds,” the failure to “fully screen incoming inmates,” and the failure to “provide for a sick call system that ensures access to care and that is capable of effectively handling emergencies” constituted deliberate indifference. Id. at 208–09.
In other cases, the defendant’s inability to “adequately quarantine or remove inmates and support staff known to have active tuberculosis” was found to constitute deliberate indifference. See Shimon v. Dep’t of Corr. Servs. for N.Y., No. 93-cv-3144 (DC), 1996 WL 15688, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 1996); see also Hernandez, 110 F. Supp. 3d at 943. And in Joy v. Healthcare CMS, the Court found that the plaintiffs stated a
43

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 44 of 54
claim under the Eighth Amendment where the warden “was aware that inmates were not thoroughly screened for disease before going into general population and that Correctional Medical Services does not have a policy in place to examine inmates before placing them into general population.” 534 F. Supp. 2d 485 (D. Del. 2008). As discussed above, the record is replete with Defendant’s deficient performance in all of these categories, including a failed quarantine policy, rampant medical delays, and ineffective screening procedures.
Furthermore, Defendant is not spared liability by claiming that he is not aware of the risk of COVID-19 to specific individual residents. The Supreme Court held in Farmer, that it “does not matter,” under the deliberate indifference prong, “whether a prisoner faces an excessive risk of attack for reasons personal to him or because all prisoners in his situation face such a risk.” 511 U.S. at 843. For that proposition, the Supreme Court relied upon Helling’s observation “that the Eighth Amendment requires a remedy for exposure of inmates to ‘infectious maladies’ such as hepatitis and venereal disease ‘even though the possible infection might not affect all of those exposed.’” Id. at 844 (quoting Helling, 509 U.S. at 33).
The record evidence thus shows that Defendant knew, and knows, of the risk of COVID19, but has recklessly disregarded that risk. He has have done so by failing to follow established guidelines for preventing the spread and severity of COVID-19 and by adopting policies, and failing to adopt others, that would mitigate the risk and harm of the virus.
Ultimately, Plaintiffs are sitting in their crowded cells awaiting a death sentence. Defendant is aware of this fact, and he is also aware that the only way to protect the
44

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 45 of 54
vulnerable inmates from serious harm is to require physical distancing be implemented in the Weld County Jail. Such a failure to meaningfully act in the face of an unprecedented pandemic that is killing thousands is clear indifference that leaves Plaintiffs—and particularly the vulnerable Plaintiffs for whom emergency relief is sought—at imminent risk of serious harm and death.
5.1(b) The current conditions of the pretrial-detainee Plaintiffs’ confinement amounts to punishment in violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Plaintiffs and class members who are detained pretrial have due process protections against punishment under the Fourteenth Amendment. Pretrial detainees are presumed innocent, and they are thus “entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish.” Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 322 (1982). “Due process requires that a pretrial detainee not be punished.” Bell, 441 U.S. at 535 n.16. Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment requires the government to do more than provide the “minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities,” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981), to non-convicted detainees. To assess the constitutionality of pretrial detention conditions that are not alleged to violate any express constitutional guarantee, a district court must determine whether those conditions amount to punishment of the detainee. Bell, 441 U.S. at 535; Pierce, 526 F.3d at 1205; Demery, 378 F.3d at 1029. “[T]he determination of whether a particular condition or restriction imposes punishment in the constitutional sense will generally turn on whether an alternate purpose is reasonably assignable.” Pierce, 526 F.3d at 1205. If a restriction or condition is not reasonably related to a legitimate goal—if it is arbitrary or purposeless—a court
45

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 46 of 54
permissibly may infer that the purpose of the governmental action is punishment that may not constitutionally be inflicted upon detainees qua detainees. Bell, 441 U.S. at 539 (quoting Kennedy v. Mendoza—Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963)).
Plaintiffs’ conditions of confinement are not reasonably related to a legitimate, nonpunitive governmental objective. Although ordinarily detention at the Weld County Jail would be reasonably related to the government objective of ensuring their attendance at court dates, “the present conditions of confinement are markedly different. At this point, Petitioners are confined in facilities where they are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 because of the lack of ability to maintain distance from others[.]” Coreas v. Bounds, Civil Action No. TDC-20-0780, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59211, at *42 (D. Md. Apr. 3, 2020). “Such conditions imposing a palpable risk of death or serious harm inflict far more serious consequences on them than are justified by the need to hold them[.]” Id. Therefore, this Court should hold, just as the Court in Coreas held, that “such conditions would bear no reasonable relationship to the purpose for which persons are committed and [] violate due process.” Id. (citing Thakker, No. 20 C 0480, Dkt. 47).
5.1(c) Plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent the temporary restraining order.75
75 Plaintiffs do not make hay of the fact that “‘[w]hen an alleged constitutional right is involved, most courts hold that no further showing of irreparable injury is necessary,’” Kikumura v. Hurley, 242 F.3d 950, 963 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting 11A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948.1 (2d ed. 1995)), because that is such a well-established principle that it does not necessitate significant briefing. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347); see also Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111, 1131 (10th Cir. 2012); see also Preston v. Thompson, 589 F.2d 300, 303 n.3 (7th Cir. 1978) (holding that “[t]he existence of a continuing constitutional violation constitutes proof of an irreparable harm” while affirming grant of preliminary injunction in prison conditions case).
46

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 47 of 54
Plaintiffs have moved for emergency interim injunctive relief because they are the most vulnerable inmates in the jail, for whom the difference of even just a few days is a matter of life and death. Cases of COVID-19 have increased exponentially in a matter of weeks. And the virus has already spread to the Weld County Jail. Given the deadliness of the disease and the state’s already over-taxed medical system, there is a substantial possibility that, absent immediate relief from the Court, vulnerable inmates within the Weld County Jail will be infected with COVID-19. And these vulnerable Plaintiffs are older adults or people with pre-existing medical conditions that increase the likelihood of severe illness or death if they contract COVID-19. For some of these vulnerable inmates, if they contract “coronavirus they have up to a 20 percent chance of death, greater than the odds of losing a game of Russian roulette.” Coreas, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59211, at *42.
Courts have expressed no hesitation in finding that risk of contracting COVID-19 constitutes irreparable harm where plaintiffs are housed in facilities with a confirmed case of COVID-19. In Basank, 2020 WL 1481503, the Court observed that because “[e]ach of the jails where a Petitioner is being housed has reported confirmed cases of COVID-19,” the “risk that Petitioners will face a severe, and quite possibly fatal, infection if they remain in . . . detention constitutes irreparable harm warranting a TRO.” Id. at *4. There are already multiple confirmed cases of COVID-19 among the population at the Weld County Jail, with more sure to come. The Tenth Circuit has held that theses these life-and-death stakes (where injury is “both certain and great,” “serious or substantial[,]” of the sort that “cannot be adequately atoned for in money[,]” and one that “the district court cannot remedy following a final determination on the merits”) are
47

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 48 of 54
sufficient to establish a likelihood of irreparable harm in support of injunctive relief. Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians v. Pierce, 253 F.3d 1234, 1250 (10th Cir. 2001) (quotations and alterations omitted); Greater Yellowstone Coal. v. Flowers, 321 F.3d 1250, 1258 (10th Cir. 2003) (holding that there is a showing of irreparable harm when the “harm cannot be compensated after the fact by monetary damages”); see also Padilla v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 387 F. Supp. 3d 1219, 1231 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (recognizing that “substandard physical conditions, [and] low standards of medical care” in immigration detention constitute irreparable harm justifying injunctive relief); Indep. Living Cent. of S. California, Inc. v. Shewry, 543 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir. 2008) (recognizing that Medi-Cal beneficiaries would suffer irreparable harm where new policy would limit beneficiaries’ access to “much-needed pharmaceuticals”).
Moreover, the Weld County Jail is abjectly failing to test inmates for COVID-19 that present less than all four symptoms of the disease and even the failure to test for a disease has been sufficient to support a finding of irreparable harm. See Boone v. Brown, 2005 WL 2006997, at *14 (D.N.J. Aug. 22, 2005) (holding that allegation of refusal to provide adequate testing for highly contagious infectious disease sufficient to demonstrate irreparable harm); Austin v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 1992 WL 277511, at *7 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 29, 1992) (granting preliminary injunction for prison to develop testing and protocol for Tuberculosis); see also Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468, 477 (2d Cir. 1996) (holding that state officials have an affirmative obligation to protect prisoners from infectious disease). And, the risks here are even more extreme than testing. Weld County’s ongoing failure to provide conditions that allow people in its custody to perform the CDC-mandated protective measures, including physical distancing, not only
48

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 49 of 54
risks irreparable harm to Plaintiffs, but nearly guarantees it. Jones’El, 164 F. Supp. 2d at 1123 (“[P]ain, suffering and the risk of death constitute irreparable harm sufficient to support a preliminary injunction in prison cases.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Even for those who survive infection, there may be a prolonged recovery, including the need for extensive rehabilitation, neurological damage, and the loss of respiratory capacity. Cole v. Collier, No. 4:14-CV-1698, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112095, at *141-42 (S.D. Tex. July 19, 2017) (holding plaintiffs had demonstrated irreparable injury where there was evidence that “[t]hose who experience heat stroke [from a lack of air conditioning in their prison cell] but do not die are at risk of being permanently disabled”).
The Constitution does not require that the vulnerable Plaintiffs wait until they have contracted or been exposed to COVID-19 before obtaining injunctive relief. Thakker, No. 20 C 0480, Dkt. 47, at 8 (“Petitioners face the inexorable progression of a global pandemic creeping across our nation—a pandemic to which they are particularly vulnerable to due to age and underlying medical conditions. At this point, it is not a matter of if COVID-19 will enter Pennsylvania prisoners, but when it is finally detected therein.”); Coronel, at *5 (“Due to their serious underlying medical conditions, all Petitioners face a risk of severe, irreparable harm if they contract COVID-19.”). Simply put, Plaintiffs’ lives are on the line and the harm they face is clearly irreparable.
5.1(d) The balance of equities favors immediately stopping the spread of COVID-19 among Plaintiffs, and the community.
The balance of equities weighs in favor of ordering that all Weld County inmates be physically distanced from one another, not just the members of the Plaintiff class, until the pressing danger posted by this pandemic has passed. In evaluating this factor, the
49

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 50 of 54
Court must “balance the competing claims of injury, which involves considering the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.” Shvartser v. Lekser, 308 F. Supp. 3d 260, 267 (D.D.C. 2018). Here, a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction will not “substantially injure other interested parties.” Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006). To the contrary, given the nature of COVID-19, not issuing preliminary relief in this case would cause injury to parties beyond the plaintiffs, including Defendant, his staff, and the public at large. As the Central District of California explained in granting a TRO in a similar case:
The balance of the equities tip sharply in favor of the Petitioners. The Petitioners face[] irreparable harm to their constitutional rights and health. Indeed, there is no harm to the Government when a court prevents the Government from engaging in unlawful practices. Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause at 10, Castillo, No. 20-cv-605. Here too, other than the relatively minimal administrative burden, there is no identifiable “harm” to Defendant. This burden is far outweighed by what is at stake to Plaintiffs and the public if no TRO is issued. As the district court in Thakker noted, “the status quo of a mere few weeks ago no longer applies.” No. 20 C 0480, Dkt. 47, at 24. For the vulnerable inmates seeking relief—inmates with underlying medical conditions who face a particular risk of severe illness and death from exposure to COVID-19, and those who are medically vulnerable because of their age—Plaintiffs’ request is a matter of life and death. The balance of the equities in this case favors life.
5.1(e) There is a strong public interest in stopping the spread of COVID-19, both within the Weld County Jail and the community.
50

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 51 of 54
Where, as here, Plaintiffs demonstrate that their constitutional rights have been violated, it follows that granting injunctive relief is in the public interest. ““It is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.” Awad, 670 F.3d at 1131. That interest alone is sufficient to weigh in favor of injunctive relief.
Here, however, the public has an additional independent and overwhelming interest in preliminary relief that would require Defendant to take action to minimize the spread of COVID19. It is well established that “public health” is a “significant public interest.” See Grand River Enters. Six Nations, Ltd. v. Pryor, 425 F.3d 158, 169 (2d Cir. 2005). The public interest in minimizing the spread of COVID-19 is overwhelming and nearly impossible to overstate.
As noted above, COVID-19 is highly contagious and has substantially higher mortality rates than any other disease with its rate of transmission. The disease has no vaccine or cure, meaning that each new infection may result in several more individuals becoming infected. Public health experts have thus unanimously agreed that the most critical actions that can be taken are preventive measures like self-isolating, maintaining a distance of six feet from all other individuals, and frequent disinfection. See, e.g., Exs. 1 & 2.
Inmates are thus destined to become vectors of disease, and will inevitably infect several other inmates, Weld County employees, medical staff, and eventually, healthcare workers in the community when critically infected inmates are sent to nearby hospitals to be treated. “The impact of [a temporary restraining order] reaches beyond the parties, carrying with it a potential for public consequences.” Hernandez, 872 F.3d at 996 (quotations omitted). An outbreak of COVID-19 could put significant pressure on or
51

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 52 of 54
exceed the capacity of local health infrastructure. Ex. 2. Ensuring that inmates in the Weld County Jail are physically distanced significantly reduces the health and economic burden on the local community and health infrastructure at large. Hernandez, 872 F.3d at 996-97 (“[T]he general public’s interest in efficient allocation of the government’s fiscal resources favors granting [relief]”). Absent swift action by this Court, the results will be devastating for Weld County. Physically distancing inmates within the Weld County Jail is essential to public safety.
5.2 The Court should not require Plaintiffs to provide security prior to issuing a temporary restraining order.
Under Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, district courts have discretion to determine the amount of the bond accompanying a preliminary injunction, and this includes the authority to set a nominal bond. In this case, the Court should waive bond because Plaintiffs are indigent, the requested interim relief is in the public interest, and the injunction is necessary to vindicate constitutional rights. See Davis v. Mineta, 302 F.3d 1104, 1126 (10th Cir. 2002) (“minimal bond amount should be considered” in public interest case); Pocklington v. O’Leary, 1986 WL 5748, at *2 (N.D. Ill. May 6, 1986) (“[B]ecause of [a prisoner’s] indigent status, no bond under Rule 65(c) is required.”); Complete Angler, L.L.C. v. City of Clearwater, 607 F.Supp.2d 1326, 1335 (M.D. Fla. 2009) (“Waiving the bond requirement is particularly appropriate where a plaintiff alleges the infringement of a fundamental constitutional right.”). 6. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for emergency interim relief should be granted in its entirety.
Dated: April 7, 2020
52

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 53 of 54
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Andy McNulty Andy McNulty Michael P. Fairhurst David A. Lane Darold W. Killmer KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP 1543 Champa St. Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 571-1000 (303) 571-1001 Facsimile amcnulty@kln-law.com mfairhurst@kln-law.com dlane@kln-law.com dkillmer@kn-law.com
and
David G. Maxted Maxted Law LLC 1543 Champa Street Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 720-717-0877 Fax: 720-500-1251 dave@maxtedlaw.com
and
Jamie Hughes Hubbard STIMSON STANCIL LABRANCHE HUBBARD, LLC Phone: 720.689.8909 Email: hubbard@sslhlaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs Carranza, Martinez, Propes, and Hunter
Mark Silverstein Rebecca T. Wallace Sara R. Neel AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF COLORADO 303 E. 17th Avenue, Suite 350 Denver, Colorado 80203
53

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 54 of 54
(720) 402-3114 msilverstein@aclu-co.org rtwallace@aclu-co.org sneel@aclu-co.org and Daniel D. Williams Lauren E. Groth HUTCHINSON BLACK AND COOK, LLC 921 Walnut Street, Suite 200 Boulder, Colorado 80302 (303) 442-6514 Williams@hbcboulder.com Groth@hbcboulder.com In cooperation with the ACLU Foundation of Colorado Counsel for Plaintiffs Barnum and Lewis
54

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1-1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8
EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1-1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 8
Declaration of Dr. Jaimie Meyer
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1746, I hereby declare as follows:
I. Background and Qualifications
1. I am Dr. Jaimie Meyer, an Assistant Professor of Medicine at Yale School of Medicine and Assistant Clinical Professor of Nursing at Yale School of Nursing in New Haven, Connecticut. I am board certified in Internal Medicine, Infectious Diseases and Addiction Medicine. I completed my residency in Internal Medicine at NY Presbyterian Hospital at Columbia, New York, in 2008. I completed a fellowship in clinical Infectious Diseases at Yale School of Medicine in 2011 and a fellowship in Interdisciplinary HIV Prevention at the Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS in 2012. I hold a Master of Science in Biostatistics and Epidemiology from Yale School of Public Health.
2. I have worked for over a decade on infectious diseases in the context of jails and prisons. From 2008-2016, I served as the Infectious Disease physician for York Correctional Institution in Niantic, Connecticut, which is the only state jail and prison for women in Connecticut. In that capacity, I was responsible for the management of HIV, Hepatitis C, tuberculosis, and other infectious diseases in the facility. Since then, I have maintained a dedicated HIV clinic in the community for patients returning home from prison and jail. For over a decade, I have been continuously funded by the NIH, industry, and foundations for clinical research on HIV prevention and treatment for people involved in the criminal justice system, including those incarcerated in closed settings (jails and prisons) and in the community under supervision (probation and parole). I have served as an expert consultant on infectious diseases and women’s health in jails and prisons for the UN Office on Drugs and Crimes, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and others. I also served as an expert health witness for the US Commission on Civil Rights Special Briefing on Women in Prison.
3. I have written and published extensively on the topics of infectious diseases among people involved in the criminal justice system including book chapters and articles in leading peer-reviewed journals (including Lancet HIV, JAMA Internal Medicine, American Journal of Public Health, International Journal of Drug Policy) on issues of prevention, diagnosis, and management of HIV, Hepatitis C, and other infectious diseases among people involved in the criminal justice system. In making the following statements, I am not commenting on the particular issues posed this case. Rather, I am making general statements about the realities of persons in detention facilities, jails and prisons.
4. My C.V. includes a full list of my honors, experience, and publications, and it is attached as Exhibit A.
5. I was paid $1,000 for my time drafting an earlier version of this report filed in another case. I subsequently prepared this version of the report without receiving payment for my services.
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1-1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 8
6. I have not testified as an expert at trial or by deposition in the past four years.
II. Heightened Risk of Epidemics in Jails and Prisons
7. The risk posed by infectious diseases in jails and prisons is significantly higher than in the community, both in terms of risk of transmission, exposure, and harm to individuals who become infected. There are several reasons this is the case, as delineated further below.
8. Globally, outbreaks of contagious diseases are all too common in closed detention settings and are more common than in the community at large. Prisons and jails are not isolated from communities. Staff, visitors, contractors, and vendors pass between communities and facilities and can bring infectious diseases into facilities. Moreover, rapid turnover of jail and prison populations means that people often cycle between facilities and communities. People often need to be transported to and from facilities to attend court and move between facilities. Prison health is public health.
9. Reduced prevention opportunities: Congregate settings such as jails and prisons allow for rapid spread of infectious diseases that are transmitted person to person, especially those passed by droplets through coughing and sneezing. When people must share dining halls, bathrooms, showers, and other common areas, the opportunities for transmission are greater. When infectious diseases are transmitted from person to person by droplets, the best initial strategy is to practice social distancing. When jailed or imprisoned, people have much less of an opportunity to protect themselves by social distancing than they would in the community. Spaces within jails and prisons are often also poorly ventilated, which promotes highly efficient spread of diseases through droplets. Placing someone in such a setting therefore dramatically reduces their ability to protect themselves from being exposed to and acquiring infectious diseases.
10. Disciplinary segregation or solitary confinement is not an effective disease containment strategy. Beyond the known detrimental mental health effects of solitary confinement, isolation of people who are ill in solitary confinement results in decreased medical attention and increased risk of death. Isolation of people who are ill using solitary confinement also is an ineffective way to prevent transmission of the virus through droplets to others because, except in specialized negative pressure rooms (rarely in medical units if available at all), air continues to flow outward from rooms to the rest of the facility. Risk of exposure is thus increased to other people in prison and staff.
11. Reduced prevention opportunities: During an infectious disease outbreak, people can protect themselves by washing hands. Jails and prisons do not provide adequate opportunities to exercise necessary hygiene measures, such as frequent handwashing or use of alcohol-based sanitizers when handwashing is unavailable. Jails and prisons are often under-resourced and ill-equipped with sufficient hand soap and alcohol-based sanitizers for people detained in and working in these settings. High-touch surfaces (doorknobs, light switches, etc.) should also be cleaned and disinfected regularly with bleach to prevent virus spread, but this is often not done in jails and prisons because of a
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1-1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 8
lack of cleaning supplies and lack of people available to perform necessary cleaning procedures.
12. Reduced prevention opportunities: During an infectious disease outbreak, a containment strategy requires people who are ill with symptoms to be isolated and that caregivers have access to personal protective equipment, including gloves, masks, gowns, and eye shields. Jails and prisons are often under-resourced and ill-equipped to provide sufficient personal protective equipment for people who are incarcerated and caregiving staff, increasing the risk for everyone in the facility of a widespread outbreak.
13. Increased susceptibility: People incarcerated in jails and prisons are more susceptible to acquiring and experiencing complications from infectious diseases than the population in the community.1 This is because people in jails and prisons are more likely than people in the community to have chronic underlying health conditions, including diabetes, heart disease, chronic lung disease, chronic liver disease, and lower immune systems from HIV.
14. Jails and prisons are often poorly equipped to diagnose and manage infectious disease outbreaks. Some jails and prisons lack onsite medical facilities or 24-hour medical care. The medical facilities at jails and prisons are almost never sufficiently equipped to handle large outbreaks of infectious diseases. To prevent transmission of droplet-borne infectious diseases, people who are infected and ill need to be isolated in specialized airborne negative pressure rooms. Most jails and prisons have few negative pressure rooms if any, and these may be already in use by people with other conditions (including tuberculosis or influenza). Resources will become exhausted rapidly and any beds available will soon be at capacity. This makes both containing the illness and caring for those who have become infected much more difficult.
15. Jails and prisons lack access to vital community resources to diagnose and manage infectious diseases. Jails and prisons do not have access to community health resources that can be crucial in identifying and managing widespread outbreaks of infectious diseases. This includes access to testing equipment, laboratories, and medications.
16. Jails and prisons often need to rely on outside facilities (hospitals, emergency departments) to provide intensive medical care given that the level of care they can provide in the facility itself is typically relatively limited. During an epidemic, this will not be possible, as those outside facilities will likely be at or over capacity themselves.
17. Health safety: As an outbreak spreads through jails, prisons, and communities, medical personnel become sick and do not show up to work. Absenteeism means that facilities can become dangerously understaffed with healthcare providers. This increases a number of risks and can dramatically reduce the level of care provided. As health systems inside facilities are taxed, people with chronic underlying physical and mental health conditions and serious medical needs may not be able to receive the care they need for these
1 Active case finding for communicable diseases in prisons, 391 The Lancet 2186 (2018), https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31251-0/fulltext.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1-1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 8
conditions. As supply chains become disrupted during a global pandemic, the availability of medicines and food may be limited.
18. Safety and security: As an outbreak spreads through jails, prisons, and communities, correctional officers and other security personnel become sick and do not show up to work. Absenteeism poses substantial safety and security risk to both the people inside the facilities and the public.
19. These risks have all been borne out during past epidemics of influenza in jails and prisons. For example, in 2012, the CDC reported an outbreak of influenza in 2 facilities in Maine, resulting in two inmate deaths.2 Subsequent CDC investigation of 995 inmates and 235 staff members across the 2 facilities discovered insufficient supplies of influenza vaccine and antiviral drugs for treatment of people who were ill and prophylaxis for people who were exposed. During the H1N1-strain flu outbreak in 2009 (known as the “swine flu”), jails and prisons experienced a disproportionately high number of cases.3 Even facilities on “quarantine” continued to accept new intakes, rendering the quarantine incomplete. These scenarios occurred in the “best case” of influenza, a viral infection for which there was an effective and available vaccine and antiviral medications, unlike COVID-19, for which there is currently neither.
III. Profile of COVID-19 as an Infectious Disease4
20. The novel coronavirus, officially known as SARS-CoV-2, causes a disease known as COVID-19. The virus is thought to pass from person to person primarily through respiratory droplets (by coughing or sneezing) but may also survive on inanimate surfaces. People seem to be most able to transmit the virus to others when they are sickest but it is possible that people can transmit the virus before they start to show symptoms or for weeks after their symptoms resolve. In China, where COVID-19 originated, the average infected person passed the virus on to 2-3 other people; transmission occurred at a distance of 3-6 feet. Not only is the virus very efficient at being transmitted through droplets, everyone is at risk of infection because our immune systems have never been exposed to or developed protective responses against this virus. A vaccine is currently in development but will likely not be able for another year to the
2 Influenza Outbreaks at Two Correctional Facilities — Maine, March 2011, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2012), https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6113a3.htm. 3 David M. Reutter, Swine Flu Widespread in Prisons and Jails, but Deaths are Few, Prison Legal News (Feb. 15, 2010), https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2010/feb/15/swine-fluwidespread-in-prisons-and-jails-but-deaths-are-few/. 4 This whole section draws from Brooks J. Global Epidemiology and Prevention of COVID19, COVID-19 Symposium, Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), virtual (March 10, 2020); Coronavirus (COVID-19), Centers for Disease Control, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html; Brent Gibson, COVID-19 (Coronavirus): What You Need to Know in Corrections, National Commission on Correctional Health Care (February 28, 2020), https://www.ncchc.org/blog/covid-19-coronavirus-what-youneed-to-know-in-corrections.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1-1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 8
general public. Antiviral medications are currently in testing but not yet FDA-approved, so only available for compassionate use from the manufacturer. People in prison and jail will likely have even less access to these novel health strategies as they become available.
21. Most people (80%) who become infected with COVID-19 will develop a mild upper respiratory infection but emerging data from China suggests serious illness occurs in up to 16% of cases, including death.5 Serious illness and death is most common among people with underlying chronic health conditions, like heart disease, lung disease, liver disease, and diabetes, and older age.6 Death in COVID-19 infection is usually due to pneumonia and sepsis. The emergence of COVID-19 during influenza season means that people are also at risk from serious illness and death due to influenza, especially when they have not received the influenza vaccine or the pneumonia vaccine.
22. The care of people who are infected with COVID-19 depends on how seriously they are ill.7 People with mild symptoms may not require hospitalization but may continue to be closely monitored at home. People with moderate symptoms may require hospitalization for supportive care, including intravenous fluids and supplemental oxygen. People with severe symptoms may require ventilation and intravenous antibiotics. Public health officials anticipate that hospital settings will likely be overwhelmed and beyond capacity to provide this type of intensive care as COVID-19 becomes more widespread in communities.
23. COVID-19 prevention strategies include containment and mitigation. Containment requires intensive hand washing practices, decontamination and aggressive cleaning of surfaces, and identifying and isolating people who are ill or who have had contact with people who are ill, including the use of personal protective equipment. Jails and prisons are totally under-resourced to meet the demand for any of these strategies. As infectious diseases spread in the community, public health demands mitigation strategies, which involves social distancing and closing other communal spaces (schools, workplaces, etc.) to protect those most vulnerable to disease. Jails and prisons are unable to adequately provide social distancing or meet mitigation recommendations as described above.
24. The time to act is now. Data from other settings demonstrate what happens when jails and prisons are unprepared for COVID-19. News outlets reported that Iran temporarily
5 Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Situation Summary, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (March 14, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/summary.html. 6 Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. The Lancet (published online March 11, 2020), https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30566-3/fulltext 7 Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (March 7, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidancemanagement-patients.html.
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1-1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 8
released 70,000 prisoners when COVID-19 started to sweep its facilities.8 To date, few state or federal prison systems have adequate (or any) pandemic preparedness plans in place.9 Systems are challenged to respond to COVID-19 guidelines that are modified on a near-daily basis. It may be impossible to adequately respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, while also respecting the rights and dignity of people who are incarcerated.
IV. Possible Risks of COVID-19 in ICE Detention Facilities
25. Based on my experience working on public health in jails and prisons, I can make the following general statements about how the COVID-19 outbreak will interact with and exacerbate conditions that may exist in some detention centers.
26. Any delays in access to care that already exist in normal circumstances will only become worse during an outbreak, making it especially difficult for the facilities to contain any infections and to treat those who are infected.
27. Failure to provide individuals with continuation of the treatment they were receiving in the community, or even just interruption of treatment, for chronic underlying health conditions will result in increased risk of morbidity and mortality related to these chronic conditions.
28. Failure to provide individuals adequate medical care for their underlying chronic health conditions results in increased risk of COVID-19 infection and increased risk of infection-related morbidity and mortality if they do become infected.
29. People with underlying chronic mental health conditions need adequate access to treatment for these conditions throughout their period of detention. Failure to provide adequate mental health care, as may happen when health systems in jails and prisons are taxed by COVID-19 outbreaks, may result in poor health outcomes. Moreover, mental health conditions may be exacerbated by the stress of incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic, including isolation and lack of visitation.
30. Failure to keep accurate and sufficient medical records will make it more difficult for facilities to identify vulnerable individuals in order to both monitor their health and protect them from infection. Inadequate screening and testing procedures in facilities increase the widespread COVID-19 transmission.
31. Language barriers will similarly prevent the effective identification of individuals who are particularly vulnerable or may have symptoms of COVID-19. Similarly, the failure to
8 Iran temporarily releases 70,000 prisoners as coronavirus cases surge, Reuters (March 9, 2020), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-iran/iran-temporarily-releases70000-prisoners-as-coronavirus-cases-surge-idUSKBN20W1E5. 9 Luke Barr & Christina Carrega, State prisons prepare for coronavirus but federal prisons not providing significant guidance, sources say, ABC News (March 11, 2020), https://abcnews.go.com/US/state-prisons-prepare-coronavirus-federal-prisons-providingsignificant/story?id=69433690.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1-1 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 8

provide necessary aids to individuals who have auditory or visual disabilities could also limit the ability to identify and monitor symptoms of COVID-19.
32. Facilities with a track record of neglecting individuals with acute pain and serious health needs under ordinary circumstances are more likely to be ill-equipped to identify, monitor, and treat a COVID-19 epidemic.
33. Similarly, facilities with a track record of failing to adequately manage single individuals in need of emergency care are more likely to be seriously ill-equipped and underprepared when a number of people will need urgent care simultaneously, as would occur during a COVID-19 epidemic.
34. For individuals in facilities that have experienced these problems in the past, the experience of an epidemic and the lack of care while effectively trapped can itself be traumatizing, compounding the trauma of incarceration.
V. Conclusion and Recommendations
35. Reducing the size of the population in jails and prisons can be crucially important to reducing the level of risk both for those within those facilities and for the community at large. As such, from a public health perspective, it is my recommendation that individuals who can safely and appropriately remain in the community not be placed in ICE detention facilities at this time. I also recommend that individuals who are already in these facilities should be evaluated for release.
36. This is more important still for individuals with preexisting conditions (e.g., heart disease, chronic lung disease, chronic liver disease, suppressed immune system, diabetes) or who are over the age of 65.
37. Health in jails and prisons is community health. Protecting the health of individuals who are detained in and work in these facilities is vital to protecting the health of the wider community.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

March 2_3_, 2020 New Haven, Connecticut

_______________________ Dr. Jaimie Meyer

7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8
EXHIBIT 2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 8
Carlos Franco-Paredes, MD, MPH Division of Infectious Diseases Department of Medicine Director, Infectious Diseases Fellowship Training Program
Mail Stop B168 Research Complex 2 12700 E. 19th Avenue | Aurora, Colorado 80045 o 303-724-4443 | f 7208480192 | carlos.franco-paredes@cuanschutz.edu
April 7, 2020
To Judicial Officer overseeing COVID-19 Litigation against Weld County:
The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a newly emerging zoonotic agent initially identified in December 2019 that causes the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), formerly known as the 2019 novel Coronavirus (2019nCoV). Infection with COVID-19 is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, especially in patients with chronic medical conditions and those 55 years of age and older. Based on a recently published systematic review of the literature, of which I am a co-author, at least one-fifth of infected cases required supportive care in medical intensive care units. Equally concerning is the fact that despite the implementation of optimal supportive interventions, case fatality rate among hospitalized patients is higher than 10 percent.
As an infectious disease clinician with a public health degree in the dynamics of infectious disease epidemics and pandemics, I am concerned about the inevitable spread of COVID19 in jails, prisons, community corrections facilities, and juvenile detention centers. The conditions in these facilities do not allow for appropriate infection control protocols and will make the current COVID-19 pandemic worse. Incarcerated populations have higher rates of underlying illness and, by extension, will have a higher case fatality rate. It is now clear that asymptomatic individuals can spread this infection. With staff traveling between their homes and the facilities, and newly arrested individuals brought in as others are released, containment of the virus is not possible. This epidemic has the potential to become the Coming Prison Plague.
Experience
Over my 20 years of experience as an infectious disease clinician, I have provided care at outpatient clinics and during inpatient consultation services in infectious diseases to a large number of patients residing in jail and prison populations. I have witnessed firsthand the impact of COVID-19 at my institution providing direct care to at least 40 patients with this infection, with many requiring intensive care management and often developing respiratory failure necessitating mechanical ventilator support.
Based on my conversations with patients, my own observations, and information that exists regarding the resources available within jail, prison, community corrections, and juvenile

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 8
detention facilities, it is my professional opinion that the medical care available cannot properly accommodate the needs of patients should there be an outbreak of COVID-19 in these facilities.
People who are considered at high risk of severe illness and death should they be infected with the coronavirus include the following:
• People age 55 or older • Anyone diagnosed with cancer, autoimmune disease (including lupus, rheumatoid
arthritis, psoriasis, Sjogren’s, Crohn’s), chronic lung disease (including asthma, COPD, bronchiectasis, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis), history of cardiovascular disease (MI), chronic arthritis (rheumatoid, psoriatic), chronic liver or kidney disease, diabetes, hypertension, heart failure, HIV, on chronic steroids or other immunosuppressant medications for chronic conditions • People with a history of smoking or other substance use disorders • Pregnant women
I can also certify that incarcerated individuals have a higher prevalence of chronic medical conditions that place them at high risk of developing severe coronavirus disease and potentially dying from this infection. Some of these medical conditions include HIV/AIDS, uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and other conditions.
Increasing Number of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths in the U.S.
Every U.S. state is dealing with COVID-19 cases and the number of deaths continue to pile up. Since March 16, 2020, the epidemiologic curve demonstrates a logarithmic increase in the number of cases with many major epicenters of transmission as it has occurred in the Pacific Northwest, New York, New Jersey, Florida, California, and Louisiana. As of today, there are approximately 170,000 cases and 3,200 deaths demonstrating that communitybased transmission clearly continues to occuri.
False Negative Rate in COVID-19 Testing
There is currently an enormous emphasis on testing symptomatic individuals for COVID-19 (despite knowing that most transmission during this pandemic occurs among undetected infection including many infected and shedding the virus but not having any symptoms). This is appropriate, but there is a lack of attention to the sensitivity and specificity of these tests, which is variable based on the type of test itself (private lab, university, WHO, etc.). Sensitivity of the RT-PCR tests is estimated to be anywhere from ~70-85% ii . As an example,
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 8
this means that out of 100 people who do have COVID-19, anywhere from 15 to 30 people will have a negative (or normal) test. Reliance on the testing results alone will therefore miss many infected and contagious patients.
R0 is higher in Colorado than the National Rate
National data suggests the R0 (“R-naught”), or number of people each infected person will also infect, of COVID-19 to be 2.3. Data from Colorado shows the state R0 to be higher, at 34iii. This means that for every individual in the state that is infected with COVID-19, they will infect 3-4 other people. This R0 is responsible for the exponential rise of infection both in Colorado and nationally.
There is reason to believe that the R0 within a jail, prison, community corrections, or juvenile detention center will be higher than in the general community given the congregate nature of these facilities and inability to maintain social distancing and hygiene protocols. A recent study of COVID-19 on a cruise ship (which provided private rooms and bathrooms, delivered meals, and less congregation than a carceral setting) modeled an R0 of 14.8, without isolation and quarantine measures.iv
Younger People Seriously Affected by COVID-19
CDPHE data through March 29, 2020, indicates that over one-third of cases are people under the age of 40 and over one-half of cases are people under the age of 50v. According to the CDC, in the United States, about 38% of coronavirus patients sick enough to be hospitalized were ages 20 to 54vi. As of March 30, 2020, UCHealth reported that many of the people in its ICU are in their 40s and 50s, and the youngest is 19 years old. Many of these patients have no serious underlying health conditionsvii. On March 30, 2020, Colorado reported its first two (2) deaths of people in their 40s from COVID-19viii.
Ongoing Concerns Regarding Hospital Capacity
There are ongoing concerns about the medical system’s ability to manage the expected surge of COVID-19 patients in the general community. As of March 27, 2020, Denver Health had 54 intensive care unit (ICU) beds, with the capacity to expand to over 150 ICU beds. It is reported that Denver Health already has over 50 patients with COVID-19 in its acute care ward and it’s ICU, with about a dozen individuals already on ventilatorsix. As of March 30, 2020, the UCHealth ICU at the Anschutz campus has 72 patients with COVID-19, 37 of whom are critically ill and 33 of whom are on ventilators. This is more than double the number of patients typically in UCHeath’s ICUx. An outbreak of COVID-19 in a jail, prison, community
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 8
corrections, or juvenile detention facility would be catastrophic and further burden hospitals already likely to be overwhelmed and under-resourced.
Therefore, a large outbreak in a jail or prison facility would put a tremendous strain on the medical system in Colorado to the detriment of patients across the region. It is reasonable to anticipate that there will be the loss of additional lives that could have otherwise been saved.
Risk Factors Present in Jails, Prisons, and Juvenile Detention Centers
Detention and incarceration of any kind requires large groups of people to be held together in a confined space and creates the worst type of setting for curbing the spread of a highly contagious infection such as COVID-19. To contain the spread of the disease, infection prevention protocols must be meticulously followed. These infection prevention protocols include “social distancing” measures, where individuals maintain a distance of at least six feet from each other, and frequent hand-washing and other good hygiene practices. These protocols apply to both incarcerated and non-incarcerated individuals. In a carceral setting, these protocols would require, for example, that individuals sleep one person per cell, rather than in bunk beds. These protocols are necessary to prevent spread of COVID-19 among otherwise healthy people, and are imperative for high-risk individuals.
The number of private rooms in a typical jail, prison, or juvenile detention facility is insufficient to comply with the recommended airborne/droplet isolation guidelines. Another important consideration that complicates disinfection and decontamination practices is the ability of this novel coronavirus to survive for extended periods of time on materials that are highly prevalent in secure settings, such as metals and other non-porous surfaces. Current outbreak protocols require frequent disinfection and decontamination of all surfaces of the facility, which is exceedingly difficult given the large number of incarcerated individuals, frequent interactions between incarcerated individuals and staff, and regularity with which staff move in and out of each facility. Again, it is critical to understand that even asymptomatic individuals can spread virus to others. Therefore, merely screening those with symptoms is inadequate to keep COVID-19 out of jail and prison facilities.
Responding to this outbreak calls for highly trained staff to correctly institute and enforce isolation and quarantine procedures and have training on the appropriate utilization of personal protective equipment. It is essential that nursing and medical staff be trained in infection control practices, implementing triage protocols, and the medical management of suspected, probable and confirmed cases of coronavirus infection. These same personnel would have to initiate the management of those with severe disease. Since these are closed facilities, the number of exposed, infected, and ill individuals may rapidly overwhelm staff and resources. As a result, many patients would need transfer to hospitals near these
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 8
facilities, likely overwhelming the surrounding healthcare systems, which are already functioning at full capacity caring for the general non-incarcerated community.
Likely Outcome if COVID-19 Spreads in Jails, Prisons, and Juvenile Detention
Given the high population density of jails, prisons, and juvenile detention centers, and the ease of transmission of this viral pathogen, the infection rate will be exponential if even a single person, with or without symptoms, that is shedding the virus enters a facility. For every person with the virus, they will infect more than 2 other people – whether they be incarcerated individuals or staff. Of those infected, one-fifth will get so ill that they require hospital admission, and about 10% will develop severe disease requiring treatment only available in the intensive care unit. To illustrate the magnitude of this threat, a jail or prison that holds 1500 individuals can anticipate that 500-650 individuals may acquire the infection. Of these, 100 to 150 individuals may develop severe disease requiring admission to the hospital, potentially to an intensive care unit. Of these, 10-15 individuals may die from respiratory failure. The cost of care in the intensive care unit is on the order of $5,000 to $8,000 dollars per day, and often more for those requiring mechanical ventilation.
The current outbreak of the novel coronavirus (SARS-Co-2) at Cook County jail highlights the ease of transmission of COVID-19 behind walls of prisons, jails, and juvenile detention centers. There is sufficient experience with this pandemic demonstrating that congested living conditions facilitate the spread of this infection.
Risk Minimization through Release from Jails, Prisons, and Juvenile Detention
Reducing the number of incarcerated individuals is necessary for effective infection control and sanitization practices that could dramatically reduce the burden COVID-19 will inevitably place on our health system. Urgent action is needed given the predicted shortage of medical supplies such as personal protective equipment, shortage of staff as medical personnel become ill themselves, and limited life-saving resources such as ventilators.
As COVID-19 spreads, it cannot be assumed that it would be a better public health strategy to keep individuals in jail rather than release them to home confinement because are likely already infected. First, for the reasons previously discussed, COVID-19 will spread faster in a carceral facility than if individuals were able to isolate or recuperate in a more private or residential setting. Second, any increase in incarcerated individuals with COVID-19 also increases the concern that a large number of staff will become infected. A study of COVID19 healthcare workers in Italy found that 20% of responding healthcare workers became infectedxi. During the SARS outbreak, 21% of worldwide cases were among healthcare workersxii. Third, attempts to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in a jail or prison setting through “lockdowns”, or extreme isolation of all incarcerated individuals, raises other public health concerns, including exacerbation of mental illness. Restrictions on movement or a
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 8
reduction in opportunities for interaction with visitors or recreation, for example, can be expected to have a deleterious effect on individuals’ mental and physical well-being. Additionally, incarcerated individuals may fail to report COVID-19 symptoms for fear of being further isolated or confined. Conclusion I have been informed that the Weld County jail has at least four detention employees and one inmate with confirmed positive tests for COVID-19, as well as a number of other inmates quarantined with symptoms. Correctional facilities and detention centers are not designed to contain the spread of a highly contagious disease or to treat those with significant illness. It is likely that there will be high numbers of ill incarcerated individuals, as well as the staff critical to these facilities. The broader health system does not have the capacity to handle a wave of critically ill patients coming from jails and prisons in addition to the expected community outbreak. Outbreaks of highly transmissible pathogens thrive in large crowds. The prompt transfer of individuals with medical conditions at risk of severe disease and death due to coronavirus infection, and prompt reduction in incarcerated populations overall, is necessary to reduce the impact of this outbreak. Sincerely,
Carlos Franco-Paredes, MD, MPH, DTMH (Gorgas) Associate Professor of Medicine Division of Infectious Diseases Department of Medicine Division of infectious Diseases Program Director Infectious Disease Fellowship Training Program, University of Colorado
i https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html [accessed March 31, 2020] ii https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2020/03/26/negative-coronavirus-test-result-doesntalways-mean-you-arent-infected/
6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 8
iii https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HyMnIikxmjoR8mpCD7OwXMMVwYUSuzxp/view [accessed March 30, 2020] iv J. Rocklöv et al., "COVID-19 outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship: estimating the epidemic potential and effectiveness of public health countermeasures," Journal of Travel Medicine (accepted manuscript published online Feb. 28, 2020), available at https://academic.oup.com/jtm/advancearticle/doi/10.1093/jtm/taaa030/5766334. v https://covid19.colorado.gov/case-data [accessed March 30, 2020] vi https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm [accessed March 30, 2020] vii https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/coronavirus/its-real-and-its-scary-uchealth-doctordescribes-covid-19-effects-inside-hospitals-on-patients [accessed March 30, 2020] viii https://www.denverpost.com/2020/03/30/colorado-coronavirus-death-under-40/ [accessed March 31, 2020] ix https://www.cpr.org/2020/03/27/denver-healths-lead-coronavirus-doctor-wants-your-help-to-slowthe-pandemic/ [accessed March 30, 2020] x https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/coronavirus/its-real-and-its-scary-uchealth-doctordescribes-covid-19-effects-inside-hospitals-on-patients [accessed March 30, 2020] xi Editorial, "COVID-19: protecting health-care workers," The Lancet (Mar. 21, 2020), available at https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30644-9/fulltext ("Protecting health-care workers"). xii David Koh, "Occupational health aspects of emerging infections - sars outbreak affecting healthcare workers," 75 Occupational & Environmental Medicine Suppl 2, A14 (2018) available at https://oem.bmj.com/content/75/Suppl_2/A14.1.
7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1-3 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1-3 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: THOMAS CARRANZA; JESUS MARTINEZ; RICHARD BARNUM; THOMAS LEWIS; MICHAEL WARD; and, COLBY PROPES,
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
DECLARATION OF THOMAS CARRANZA
I, Thomas Carranza, declare the following based on my personal knowledge:
1. My name is Thomas Carranza and I am currently incarcerated in Weld County jail. I am held pretrial on a $1,000 bond I am unable to afford. I am 55 years old and suffer from asthma and have been hospitalized for acute asthmatic bronchitis. I have an undiagnosed condition that is causing internal bleeding in my stool. I have been informed that I have high blood pressure but still need to be diagnosed. I have a long history as a smoker.
2. I am incarcerated in a pod with at least 40-50 other people. There are up to 6 people per cell. I usually have been in a cell with 6 people total. Recently, several people were released and I now have one other cellmate. There are a number of cells in my pod that still have 6 other people in them. More inmates could be placed in my cell at any time. Each pod has 4 toilets, and for males 4 urinals, shared by all of us in the pod. The toilets and urinals are located

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1-3 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
in common spaces. The cells in the jail are “dry” and have no toilets or urinals. To use the bathroom, we have to leave our cell and go to the toilets.
3. In the cells, we share a small space and sleep on triple bunk beds. For cells housing 6 inmates, three inmates will share a bunk with three beds stacked on top of each other, while the other three share the same. Three bunked inmates sleep within 2-4 feet of each other. Its impossible for us to stay 6 feet away from each other inside the cells. The cells are about 12 by 10 feet. Even when only one other person is in the cell, if we move at all it is still impossible to stay 6 feet away from each other. The other person in my cell right now sleeps in the same bunk as I do, so we are just a few feet apart.
4. Many people in my pod are sick or have been sick. People have symptoms like coughing, fevers, being tired and achy, sore throat, and shortness of breath. Most of the people sick haven’t been tested for the coronavirus.
5. Some people don’t have symptoms and aren’t sick, but everyone is housed together in the same pods and cells. Sick people are housed in the same pod, sharing the same common spaces, toilets, urinals, and other facilities, as those who do not have symptoms.
6. Several days ago, the jail started a 23-hour lockdown in our cells, so we get only 1 hour of time outside the cells. In my pod, they open two cells for an hour at a time, so about 1218 of us are out at any given time. Guards also let people on lockdown come and go to use the toilet because the cells are dry, or for other reasons like to use the phone, so sometime its more like 20 people out in the common area.
7. Even after the lockdown, all of us on the pod still share common spaces, use the same toilets, urinals, and restroom facilities, touch the same surfaces, use the same chairs and

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1-3 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4

tables in the common areas, use the same phones, and come into contact with one another when we leave our cells. We also exchange food and can go from room to room.
8. Even after the lockdown, we are still housed in groups with as many as 6 per cell in my pod. I know that there are as many as 9 per cell in A pod. It is still impossible to stay 6 feet away from others.
9. The jail isn’t removing sick inmates out of the pods unless they have at least four symptoms of COVID-19. In my pod, jail personnel wrote on a poster that you must have at least four symptoms to be pulled out of the pod and quarantined.
10. According to trustees working in the kitchen, people have been sick who work in the kitchen and handle food and may be spreading the virus to the rest of us in the jail.
11. The jail does not sanitize or disinfect the common areas in between usages, including the toilet, restroom, and other common areas.
12. The guards are now wearing masks as of a couple days ago. However, the jail refuses to provide masks to us. I have asked for a mask and been denied. I made a mask using a towel I wrapped around my face, and jail guards ordered me to remove it. Guards told me that I was inciting other inmates by wearing a mask. Another guy also tried to wear a homemade mask and they told him not to.

Executed this 7th day of April, 2020.

s/ Thomas Carranza __________________________ Thomas Carranza, by and through counsel David G. Maxted

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1-4 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT 4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1-4 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: THOMAS CARRANZA; JESUS MARTINEZ; RICHARD BARNUM; THOMAS LEWIS; MICHAEL WARD; and, COLBY PROPES,
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL WARD
I, Michael Ward, declare the following based on my personal knowledge:
1. My name is Michael Ward and I am currently incarcerated in Weld County jail. I am held pretrial on a $10,000 bond I am unable to afford. I am 31 years old and suffer from high blood pressure and arthritis. I have a weakened immunize system from getting sick from West Nile virus. As a result of this diminished immunity, I have also contracted shingles. I have a history as a smoker for about a decade.
2. I am in a pod with at least 40-60 other people. There are up to 9 people per cell. I usually have been in a cell with 3-6 people. Since the COVID-19 epidemic, I’ve shared a cell with 6 people, then it went down to 3, and then up to 6 total again. I currently have 2 cellmates, 3 of us total.

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1-4 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 5
3. Each pod has 4 toilets, and for males 4 urinals, shared by all of us in the pod. The toilets and urinals are located in common spaces. The cells in the jail are “dry” and have no toilets or urinals. To use the bathroom, we have to leave our cell and go to the toilets.
4. There is no drinking water in the cells either, and we all share two water fountains. We have to ask the deputy to leave our cell to go fill up our drinking up at the water fountains.
5. In the cells, we share a small space and sleep on triple bunk beds. People sleep right on top of each other, within a couple feet. The cells are small and its impossible to stay 6 feet away from other people within our cells.
6. My most recent bunkmate got quarantined for potential COVID-19. He had those same symptoms for a solid two weeks in my cell. He tested negative for flu and strep throat, but they still failed to test him for COVID-19 or remove him for about a week or so.
7. Many people in my pod are sick or have been sick. About a third or more of the people on my pod are sick. People have symptoms like coughing, fevers, being tired and achy, sore throat, and shortness of breath. Most of the people sick haven’t been tested for the coronavirus. The jail has told us multiple people within the facility have tested positive for the coronavirus, both staff and inmates. But on my pod I don’t think a single person here has been tested for COVID-19 even though many of us are sick.
8. Some people don’t have symptoms and aren’t sick, but everyone is housed together in the same pods and cells. Sick people share the same common spaces, toilets, urinals, and other facilities, as those who do not have symptoms.
9. Several days ago, the jail started a 23-hour lockdown in our cells, so we get only 1 hour of time outside the cells. In my pod, they open two cells for an hour at a time, so as many as

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1-4 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 5
10 or more of us are out at any given time, sometimes more for the cells that are full of 9 people. Guards also let people on lockdown come and go to use the toilet, or for other reasons like to use the phone, so sometime its more like 15-20 people out in the common area.
10. Even after the lockdown, all of us on the pod still share common spaces, use the same toilets, urinals, and restroom facilities, touch the same surfaces, use the same chairs and tables in the common areas, use the same phones, and come into contact with one another when we leave our cells.
11. One guy in a cell near me urinated in his drinking cup because they wouldn’t let him out of his cell to use the toilet during a lockdown period.
12. Even after the lockdown, we are still housed in groups with as many as 9 per cell where staying 6 feet apart is impossible.
13. The jail isn’t removing sick inmates out of the pods unless they have at least four symptoms of COVID-19. Jail staff wrote on a poster that you must have at least four symptoms to be pulled out of the pod and quarantined.
14. The jail does not sanitize or disinfect the common areas in between usages, including the toilet, restroom, and other common areas. Occasionally they will sanitize certain areas or a trustee will do a quick wipe-down, but not completely and they do not sanitize or clean all areas. Many areas, including the water fountain, toilet stall areas, railings, shower areas, and other surfaces almost never get wiped down or sanitized, definitely not in between every usage.
15. The guards are now wearing masks as of a couple days ago. However, the jail refuses to provide masks to us for general use in the pods. They give us masks when an inmate leaves the pod, but when we return to the pod they throw it away. We have no masks within the pod.

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1-4 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 5

16. I filed a grievance about the jail’s failure to provide adequate care and safety due to the coronavirus, and the response I got stated that the grievance was rejected due to a memo dated March 17, 2020, which stated that issues regarding COVID-19 precautions are not grievable. I was told I could not exhaust my administrative remedies any further, and not to file any other grievances or to pursue additional steps regarding this grievance.

Executed this 7th day of April, 2020.

s/ Michael Ward __________________________ Michael Ward, by and through counsel David G. Maxted

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1-5 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: 20-cv-977 THOMAS CARRANZA; JESUS MARTINEZ; RICHARD BARNUM; THOMAS LEWIS; MICHAEL WARD; COLBY PROPES; and CHAD HUNTER,
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Having considered the evidence and authority submitted by the parties in this matter, and in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, the Court finds that entry of interim injunctive relief is appropriate in this case because: Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits; there is a real threat of irreparable harm absent injunctive relief; the balance of harms favors entry of an injuction; and the issuance of injunctive relief is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are being held under unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the Weld County Jail in violation of their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993). The conditions of confinement Plaintiffs are currently being held under are likely to cause them to suffer irreparable harm absent interim injunctive relief. Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians v. Pierce, 253 F.3d 1234,
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1-5 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
1250 (10th Cir. 2001). The balance of harms weighs in favor of granting interim injunctive relief because Plaintiffs’ situation is life and death. Edmisten v. Werholtz, 287 F. App’x 728, 732-35 (10th Cir. 2008); see also Thakker, et al. v. Doll, et al., No. 20 C 0480, Dkt. 47, at 24 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2020). Finally, the public interest favors stopping the spread of COVID-19, Grand River Enters. Six Nations, Ltd. v. Pryor, 425 F.3d 158, 169 (2d Cir. 2005), and protecting Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Kikumura v. Hurley, 242 F.3d 950, 963 (10th Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, this Court issues the following injunctive relief requiring that Defendant: 1. Physically distance all inmates from one another and staff within the Weld County
Jail, which necessitates at least six feet of distance between individuals at all times; 2. On a daily basis, thoroughly and professionally disinfect and sanitize the Weld
County Jail. 3. Provide hygiene supplies, including supplies to wash hands and disinfect common
areas, to inmates at all times and free of charge; 4. Provide personal protection equipment, including but not limited to masks, to all staff
members and inmates; 5. Take particularly heightened precautions with respect to food handling and delivery,
such as ensuring that people who come into contact with food are not displaying any potential symptoms of COVID-19, have not recently been in contact with people displaying potential symptoms of COVID-19, and people who come into contact with food wear appropriate personal protective at all times when in contact with food (including but not limited to appropriate masks and gloves);
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 1-5 Filed 04/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3 6. Implement appropriate policies and protocols to identify inmates who are possibly carrying COVID-19 and quarantine those inmates from other individuals; and 7. Provide accurate, up-to-date educational and informational materials regarding sanitation and prevention of COVID-19, the status of how COVID-19 is affecting the facility including the number of infected inmates and staff, and daily access to news reports regarding COVID-19. Further, this Court holds that, in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(c), bond is waived in this matter because the above-outlined interim relief is in the public interest. See Davis v. Mineta, 302 F.3d 1104, 1126 (10th Cir. 2002). SO ORDERED, this ___ day of ________ 2020, at Denver, Colorado United States District Judge
3

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 30
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: 20-cv-977 THOMAS CARRANZA; JESUS MARTINEZ; RICHARD BARNUM; THOMAS LEWIS; MICHAEL WARD; COLBY PROPES; and CHAD HUNTER,
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
Plaintiffs Thomas Carranza, Jesus Martinez, Richard Barnum, Thomas Lewis, Michael Ward, Colby Propes, and Chad Hunter, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, by and through their through their attorneys, bring this Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief against Weld County Sheriff Steven Reams in his official capacity, and state as follows in support:
INTRODUCTION 1. You are likely reading this Complaint from self-isolation in your home. Now imagine if someone sick with COVID-19 came into that home and then sealed the doors and windows behind them. That is what the Weld County Jail has just done to hundreds of human beings currently detained there, where COVID-19 is confirmed, physical distancing is impossible, and yet no one detained can leave.
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 30
2. We are in the midst of the most significant pandemic in generations.1 A highly contagious and deadly virus called coronavirus has swept the globe. While no one is safe from transmission of the virus, jails, by their very nature, are especially prone to being epicenters of disease. This is true not only because of crowded conditions in the jail and limited access to hygiene products and medical care, but also because jails disproportionately house people who are at high-risk of serious illness or death if they contract the virus. This case seeks safety for highrisk inmates housed in the Weld County Jail, a Colorado jail that has willfully disregarded public health guidelines and, in doing so, has put incarcerated people, correctional staff and the public at grave risk. COVID-19 is spreading like wildfire through the Weld County Jail, and it appears that only immediate action by this Court will change the deadly course of events unfolding there.
3. COVID-19 is a highly contagious respiratory disease that kills between 1 and 6% of those infected: at least ten times more than the common flu that kills thousands a year.2 The World Health Organization estimates that one in five people who become infected require hospitalization.3 As of March 26, 2020, the United States led the world in confirmed cases of COVID-19.4 The virus is spreading exponentially: as of April 2, 2020, there are more than 210,000
1 John M. Barry, The Single Most Important Lesson from the 1918 Influenza, New York Times (March 17, 2020), https://cutt.ly/PtQ5uAZ (Opinion piece by author of “The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History,” noting comparison between current COVID-19 outbreak and the 1918 influenza outbreak widely considered one of the worst pandemics in history). 2 As of March 27, 2020, there were 622,450 confirmed cases globally, with 28,794 deaths and 135,779 recoveries. Johns Hopkins University of Medicine, Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering at Johns Hopkins University, https://cutt.ly/StEyn2U. 3 World Health Organization, Q&A on Coronaviruses (COVID-19), “Should I Worry About COVID-19?,” https://cutt.ly/YtEyrxl. 4 Donald G. McNeil, Jr., The U.S. Now Leads the World in Confirmed Coronavirus Cases, New York Times (March 26, 2020), https://cutt.ly/QtQ7zz6.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 30
confirmed cases in the United States.5 Colorado is considered a new hot spot for spread of the
disease, with over 5,000 confirmed cases in Colorado, nearly 1,000 hospitalizations and 150
confirmed deaths.6 As of April 2, it was reported that Colorado’s COVID-19 death rate was
rising faster than any other state.7
4. There is no vaccine or cure for COVID-19. According to public health experts, the
only course of action to slow and prevent transmission, primarily through a practice known as
“social distancing,” which requires all people to stay at least six feet away from all other people.8
Indeed, the only assured way to curb the pandemic is through dramatically reducing contact for
all.9 Consequently, every American institution—from schools10 to places of worship,11 from
businesses12 to legislatures13—has been exhorted to reduce the number of people in close quarters,
if not empty entirely. These imperatives apply with special force to jails, where inmates and staff
5 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coronavirus Cases in the U.S., available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html; see also Brittany Shammas, et al., Trump says Quarantine for New York Area “Will not be Necessary;” U.S. Coronavirus-related Deaths Double in Two Days, Wash. Post (March 28, 2020, 11:27 p.m.), https://cutt.ly/ktRo8u0. 6 See https://covid19.colorado.gov/case-data. 7 See https://www.kktv.com/content/news/Governor-says-Colorados--569337551.html. 8 World Health Organization, Coronavirus, https://cutt.ly/ztWyf7e (“At this time, there are no specific vaccines or treatments for COVID-19.”).”); Dawnson v. Asher, 20-cv-409 (W.D. Wash.) at Doc. No. 4, Declaration of Dr. Robert B. Greifinger, MD, ¶ 8 (“Social distancing and hand hygiene are the only known ways to prevent the rapid spread of COVID-19.”). 9 Harry Stevens, Why Outbreaks Like Coronavirus Spread Exponentially, and how to “Flatten the Curve,” Wash. Post. (March 14, 2020), https://cutt.ly/etYRnkz. 10 Centers for Disease Control, Interim Guidance for Administrators of US K-12 Schools and Child Care Programs, https://cutt.ly/ItRPq5n. 11 Centers for Disease Control, Interim Guidance for Administrators and Leaders of Communityand Faith-Based Organizations to Plan, Prepare, and Respond to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), https://cutt.ly/KtRPk1k. 12 Centers for Disease Control, Interim Guidance for Businesses and Employers to Plan and Respond to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), https://cutt.ly/stRPvg4. 13 Nat’l Conf. of State Legislatures, Coronavirus and State Legislatures in the News, https://cutt.ly/4tRPQne.a
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 30
are packed together in close quarters and the government controls almost entirely a person’s ability to avoid others and to maintain adequate sanitation.
5. To comply with public health guidelines, jailers must ensure that inmates be allowed to eat, cook, sleep, use the toilet and socialize while maintaining 6 feet distance from all others. Failure to take these actions will have serious consequences. For example, at the peak of the outbreak in Wuhan, China —the province where COVID-19 originated—over half of all reported COVID-19 cases were incarcerated people. On Rikers Island, the rate of infection among incarcerated people is over seven times the rate of infection in New York City generally, and 25 times higher than the rate in Wuhan, China.14
6. Here in Colorado, prior to the pandemic, almost all jails housed incarcerated people in conditions that made physical distancing impossible, with prisoners eating, sleeping and using the toilet within a few feet of one another. However, based on guidance from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Colorado Department of Public Health and Education (CDPHE), and Governor Jared Polis, several Colorado jails have substantially decreased their jail population in an effort to make physical distancing possible and to protect high-risk inmates.15
7. The Weld County Jail, however, is far behind other Colorado counties in efforts to safely lower the jail population, and current conditions in the Weld County Jail pose a serious, obvious, and emergent health and safety risk to inmates, staff and the public. Many inmates are housed at least 3-4 to a small cell, with some cells housing as many as 9 inmates. Until just days ago, inmates ate and recreated shoulder-to-shoulder, with no efforts at physical distancing, even as several inmates showed symptoms consistent with COVID-19. Now, with recently confirmed
15 https://www.denverpost.com/2020/04/01/colorado-jails-inmate-release-coronavirus-covid/ 4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 30
cases, inmates are on lockdown 23 hours per day, with some non-symptomatic inmates locked in cells with sick inmates. Only some (but not all) very sick patients are quarantined, and the rest are left in packed cells to spread the virus to others.
8. Rather than taking proactive measures at the start of this crisis to comply with public health guidance, Weld County Sheriff Steven Reams has openly eschewed the seriousness of the pandemic and ignored the science and data underlying public health experts’ concerns regarding dangerous spread of the virus within overcrowded jails. Not only has Sheriff Reams refused to make any meaningful efforts to depopulate his jail to allow physical distancing, he also discouraged local district attorneys and judges from making efforts to decrease the Weld County jail population, assuring them he has things under control in his jail and was ready to manage COVID-19.
9. Given Sheriff Reams’ deliberately indifferent approach to this crisis, it should come as no surprise that COVID-19 is quickly spreading within Weld County Jail. The first confirmed cases occurred by around April 1 (and included a Weld County inmate and two Weld County sheriffs’ deputies), and there now at least four confirmed cases among sheriff’s deputies, multiple confirmed inmate cases, and dozens more symptomatic inmates.
10. Sheriff Reams’ failure to act to protect people who live and work in his jail is particularly egregious given the current state of affairs in Weld County. Weld County is a hot spot for the COVID-19 outbreak in Colorado, with the fourth highest number of COVID-19 infections in the state and the second highest number of deaths.16
16 See https://covid19.colorado.gov/case-data. 5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 30
11. Jails are not hermetically sealed—quite the opposite. Jail populations shift significantly each day as people are arrested and released. The people who go in—from correctional and medical staff, to those detained prior to trial, to those serving short sentences— typically come out in very short order. In Colorado, on average 586 people are released from jail custody every day, and about 30 people are released from Weld County Jail every day.17 Failing to prevent and mitigate the spread of COVID-19 endangers not only those within the institution, but the entire community. Hence, immediate and aggressive action to allow incarcerated persons and correctional staff to practice physical distancing is an essential mitigation effort that the Weld County Jail must undertake to comport with public health guidance and to prevent a catastrophic outbreak at the facility.
12. Absent immediate intervention from this Court to align the operation of Weld County Jail with public health principles, devastating, and in many cases deadly, irreparable harm will befall incarcerated persons, jail staff, and the community.18 The outbreaks in detention facilities around the country, many with more resources, space, and sophisticated health delivery systems than the Weld County Jail,19 prove the need for immediate and significant reductions in population. Case-by-case review is no match for exponential spread of the disease. Courts and
17 HB 19-1297: Jail Data, Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/Data/Data_Instruments/HB1297/Dashboard/HB19-1297.html. 18 Noam N. Levey, Jenny Jarvie, Coronavirus Will Hit Health System Hard and Not All States are Prepared, L.A. Times (March 12, 2020 4:00 a.m.), https://cutt.ly/mtYTI3U; Joanne Kenen, Local Officials Alarmed by Dearth of Ventilators, Hospital Beds, (March 14, 2020 7:00 a.m.), https://cutt.ly/stYTDDk. 19 Sam Kelly, 134 inmates at Cook County Jail confirmed positive for COVID-19, CHICAGO SUN-TIMES (Mar. 30, 2020). https://cutt.ly/6tYTqi5.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 30

executive branch officials elsewhere in the country have accepted this reality and begun broad-

based, categorical releases.20

13. Accordingly, the named Plaintiffs—on their own behalf and for the class of high-

risk persons they represent who are incarcerated at the Weld County Jail—bring this action and

request that the Weld County Jail immediately comply with public health principles designed to

minimize the risk of COVID-19 becoming even more widespread at the jail.

I.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14. Plaintiffs bring this class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for relief from both

detention and conditions of confinement that violate their Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendment

rights under the United States Constitution.

15. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331.

16. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because the Defendant resides

in this district and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims

occurred in this district.

II.

PARTIES

17. Plaintiff Thomas Carranza is detained pretrial in Weld County jail. He is held on a

$1,000 bond and facing a misdemeanor charge. He is unable to pay a financial condition of bond.

Mr. Carranza is 55 years old, and he suffers from asthma. He has been hospitalized for acute

20 See, e.g., Memorandum and Order, Thakker v. Doll, No. 20-CV-0480 (M.D.Pa. Mar. 31, 2020) (categorically releasing petitioners who “suffer[] from chronic medical conditions and face[] an imminent risk of death or serious injury if exposed to COVID-19); Emmanuel Felton, A Judge Ordered The Release Of Low-Level Prisoners Because Of The Coronavirus. People Were Absolutely Furious., Buzzfeed News (Mar. 27, 2020), https://cutt.ly/mtYTyxd.
7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 30
asthmatic bronchitis. In the past, he was a smoker, making his respiratory condition more vulnerable. Mr. Carranza has been advised by medical providers that he has high blood pressure but has not been properly diagnosed. Mr. Carranza is also currently suffering from an undiagnosed intestinal condition causing internal bleeding and blood in his stool. Medical staff in the jail have not provided a diagnosis or treatment for this condition. As a result of his medical conditions, Mr. Carranza is particularly vulnerable to suffering severe effects from COVID. Physical distancing is critical for him. Should Mr. Carranza be released from jail, he would practice physical distancing.
18. Plaintiff Jesus Martinez is held pretrial in Weld county jail on a $10,000 bond and a parole hold. Mr. Martinez is 33 years old and suffers from multiple chronic medical conditions. He is diabetic, he has asthma and experiences shortness of breath, he has high blood pressure, and he is overweight. Mr. Martinez also had a corneal transplant in one eye and is currently experiencing discomfort and potential complications relating to this condition. As a result of his medical conditions, Mr. Martinez is particularly vulnerable to suffering severe effects from COVID. Physical distancing is critical for him. Should Mr. Martinez be released from jail, he would practice physical distancing.
19. Plaintiff Richard Barnum is 54 years old and has been held pretrial at the Weld County Jail since October 2019. Mr. Barnum intends to take his pending criminal case to trial but cannot afford the $25,000 bond to be released in the meantime. Mr. Barnum is disabled, receives social security disability benefits, and is eligible for Medicare. Mr. Barnum has untreated Hepatitis C. Prior to his arrest, Mr. Barnum was eligible for and working to obtain treatment for Hepatitis C. If he is released, he would be able to continue with that process and obtain treatment through Medicare. About five years ago, Mr. Barnum suffered major kidney failure due to stage three kidney disease. He spent one month in the hospital, which included dialysis treatment. He
8

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 30
continues to regularly see a doctor in Loveland CO in order to monitor his kidney issues. Mr. Barnum is a smoker who also has hypertension, PTSD and depression. As a result of his medical conditions, Mr. Barnum is particularly vulnerable to suffering severe effects from COVID. Physical distancing is critical for him. Mr. Barnum has a place to stay and to practice physical distancing if he is released from the jail. Mr. Barnum’s next court date is July 1, 2020. If nothing changes, he will remain in Weld County jail until at least that time.
20. Plaintiff Thomas Lewis is 60 years old and has been held at the Weld County jail since January 3, 2020. He was arrested on January 3, 2020 and his original bond was $8000. That bond was recently reduced to $1500, which he also cannot afford to post. Mr. Lewis’ next court appearance is May 20. Thus, with no intervention, he will be in the Weld County Jail until at least that time. Mr. Lewis suffers from vitiligo, which is an immune deficiency disease. As a result of his age and medical condition, Mr. Lewis is particularly vulnerable to suffering severe effects from COVID. Physical distancing is critical for him. Should Mr. Lewis be released from jail, he would practice physical distancing.
21. Plaintiff Michael Ward is 31 years old, and suffers from high blood pressure, arthritis, fibromyalgia, and a compromised immune system from having previously contracted West Nile virus. Mr. Ward is held pretrial at the Weld County Jail on a $10,000 bond for charges relating to a felony motor vehicle theft and several other misdemeanor charges. Mr. Ward is presumed innocent and is not convicted of any crime. As a result of his medical conditions, Mr. Ward is particularly vulnerable to suffering severe effects from COVID. Physical distancing is critical for him. Should Mr. Ward be released from jail, he would practice physical distancing.
9

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 30

22. Because Plaintiffs Carranza, Martinez, Barnum, Lewis, and Ward are all being held

pretrial, they have not been convicted of the alleged offense(s) for which they are being detained

in the jail and are presumed innocent.

23. Plaintiff Colby Propes has pled guilty and is awaiting sentencing. He is being held

on a $30,000 bond at the Weld County Jail and is unlikely to be released from the jail at any

relevant time. Mr. Propes is 44 years old and has a long history of smoking as well as substance

abuse disorders. As a result of his medical conditions and history of smoking, Mr. Propes is

particularly vulnerable to suffering severe effects from COVID. Physical distancing is critical for

him. Should Mr. Ward be released from jail, he would practice physical distancing.

24. Plaintiff Chad Hunter is 46 years old and serving a 90-day jail sentence in Weld

County Jail, after which he will be released on two years of probation. Mr. Hunter expects to be

released on April 26, 2020. Mr. Hunter is hypoglycemic, he has a long history as a smoker, and he

has a history of a substance abuse disorder. As a result of his medical conditions, Mr. Hunter is

particularly vulnerable to suffering severe effects from COVID. Physical distancing is critical for

him. Should Mr. Hunter be released from jail, he would practice physical distancing.

25. Defendant Sheriff Steven Reams and his agents currently have immediate custody

over the Plaintiffs and all other putative class members. Defendant Reams is a final policymaker

for Weld County with respect to the customs, policies, and practices of its jail. All of Defendant

Reams’ actions and inactions at issue herein occurred under color of state law.

III.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

COVID-19 Poses a Significant Risk of Illness, Injury, or Death

10

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 30
26. The novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19 has led to a global pandemic.21 As of
April 2, 2020, there were more than 210,000 confirmed cases in the United States alone and more than 4,500 deaths.22 Projections indicate that as many as 240,000 people in the U.S. will die from COVID-19, accounting for existing interventions.23
27. The virus is known to spread from person to person through respiratory droplets, close personal contact, fecal matter, and from contact with contaminated surfaces and objects.24
There is no vaccine against COVID-19, and there is no known medication to prevent or treat infection.25 Physical distancing—deliberately keeping at least six feet of space between persons to avoid spreading illness26—and a vigilant hygiene regimen, including washing hands frequently
and thoroughly with soap and water, are the only known effective measures for protecting against transmission of COVID-19.27 Because the coronavirus spreads among people who do not show
symptoms, staying away from people is the best way to prevent contraction. In other words,
21 Betsy McKay et al., Coronavirus Declared Pandemic by World Health Organization, WALL ST. J. (Mar. 11, 2020, 11:59 PM), https://cutt.ly/UtEuSLC. 22 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coronavirus Cases in the U.S., available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html; see also Brittany Shammas, et al., Trump says Quarantine for New York Area “Will not be Necessary;” U.S. Coronavirus-related Deaths Double in Two Days, Wash. Post (March 28, 2020, 11:27 p.m.), https://cutt.ly/ktRo8u0. 23 Rick Noack, et al., White House Task Force Projects 100,000 to 240,000 Deaths in U.S., Even With Mitigation Efforts, Wash. Post. (April 1, 2020, 12:02 a.m.), https://cutt.ly/5tYT7uo. 24 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Patience with Suspected or Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Healthcare Settings, https://cutt.ly/ztRAo0X. 25 Supra note Error! Bookmark not defined.. 26 Johns Hopkins University, Coronavirus, Social Distancing and Self-Quarantine, https://cutt.ly/VtYYiDG. 27 Dawson v. Asher, 20-cv-409 (W.D. Wash.) at Doc. No. 5, Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Louis Golob at ¶ 8.
11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 30
everyone including officials at the Weld County Jail has to act as is if everyone has the disease (a point amplified by the fact that numerous people in the jail do have the disease).
28. Once contracted, COVID-19 can cause severe damage to lung tissue, including a permanent loss of respiratory capacity, and it can damage tissues in other vital organs, such as the heart and liver.28
29. People over the age of fifty face a greater risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19.29 In a February 29, 2020 preliminary report, individuals age 50-59 had an overall mortality rate of 1.3%; 60-69-year-olds had an overall 3.6% mortality rate, and those 70-79 years old had an 8% mortality rate.30
30. People of any age who suffer from certain underlying medical conditions, including lung disease, heart disease, chronic liver or kidney disease (including hepatitis and dialysis patients), diabetes, high blood pressure epilepsy, hypertension, compromised immune systems (such as from cancer, HIV, or autoimmune disease), blood disorders (including sickle cell disease), inherited metabolic disorders, stroke, developmental delay, and asthma, also have an elevated risk.31 Early reports estimate that the mortality rate for those with cardiovascular disease was
28 Golob Dec., supra note 27 at ¶ 4; see also Centers for Disease Control, Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), https://cutt.ly/etRPVRl 29 Xianxian Zhao, et al., Incidence, clinical characteristics and prognostic factor of patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis (March 20, 2020), https://cutt.ly/etRAkmt. 30 Age, Sex, Existing Conditions of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths Chart, https://cutt.ly/ytEimUQ (data analysis based on WHOChina Joint Mission Report). 31 Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) advice for the public: Myth busters, World Health Organization, https://cutt.ly/dtEiCyc (“Older people, and people with pre-existing medical conditions (such as asthma, diabetes, heart disease) appear to be more vulnerable to becoming severely ill with the virus.”).
12

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 30
13.2%, 9.2% for diabetes, 8.4% for hypertension, 8.0% for chronic respiratory disease, and 7.6% for cancer.32
31. In many people, COVID-19 causes fever, cough, and shortness of breath. However, for people over the age of fifty or with medical conditions that increase the risk of serious COVID19 infection, shortness of breath can be severe.33 Most people in higher risk categories who develop serious illness will need advanced support. This requires highly specialized equipment like ventilators that are in limited supply, and an entire team of care providers, including 1:1 or 1:2 nurse to patient ratios, respiratory therapists, and intensive care physicians.34
32. In serious cases, COVID-19 causes acute respiratory disease syndrome, which is life-threatening: those who receive ideal medical care with ARDS have a 30% mortality rate.35 Even in non-ARDS cases, COVID-19 can severely damage lung tissue, which requires an extensive period of rehabilitation, and in some cases, cause permanent loss of breathing capacity.36 COVID-19 may also target the heart, causing a medical condition called myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle. Myocarditis can reduce the heart’s ability to pump.37 This reduction can lead to rapid or abnormal heart rhythms in the short term, and long-term heart failure that limits exercise tolerance and the ability to work.
32 Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), World Health Organization (Feb. 28, 2020), at 12, https://cutt.ly/xtEokCt (finding fatality rates for patients with COVID-19 and co-morbid conditions to be: “13.2% for those with cardiovascular disease, 9.2% for diabetes, 8.4% for hypertension, 8.0% for chronic respiratory disease, and 7.6% for cancer”). 33 Golob Dec, supra note 27 at ¶ 3; Zhao, supra note 29. 34 Golob Dec., supra note 27 at ¶ 6. 35 Letter from Faculty at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, School of Nursing, and Bloomberg School of Public Health to Hon. Larry Hogan, Gov. of Maryland, March 25, 2020, https://cutt.ly/stERiXk. 36 Golob Dec., supra note 27 at ¶ 7. 37 Id.
13

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 30
33. COVID-19 can also trigger an over-response of the immune system and result in widespread damage to other organs, including permanent injury to the kidneys and neurologic injury.38
34. These complications can manifest at an alarming pace. Patients can show the first symptoms of infection in as little as two days after exposure, and their condition can seriously deteriorate in as little as five days or sooner.39
35. Even some younger and healthier people who contract COVID-19 may require supportive care, which includes supplemental oxygen, positive pressure ventilation, and in extreme cases, extracorporeal mechanical oxygenation.40
36. The need for care, including intensive care, and the likelihood of death, is much higher from COVID-19 infection than from influenza.41 According to recent estimates, the fatality rate of people infected with COVID-19 is about ten times higher than a severe seasonal influenza, even in advanced countries with highly effective health care systems.42 For people in the highest risk populations, the fatality rate of COVID-19 infection is about 15 percent.43
37. Patients who do not die from serious cases of COVID-19 may face prolonged recovery periods, including extensive rehabilitation from neurologic damage, loss of digits, and loss of respiratory capacity.44
38 Id. 39 CDC, Interim Clinical Guidance, supra note 28. 40 Golob Dec., supra note 27 at ¶5. 41 Id. at ¶ 4. 42 Betsy McKay, Coronavirus vs. Flu Which Virus is Deadlier, WALL ST. J. (Mar. 10, 2020, 12:49 PM), https://cutt.ly/itEmi8j. 43 Golob Dec., supra note 27 at ¶ 4. 44 Id.
14

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 30
38. Beyond the general public health presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, persons incarcerated in jails face a particularly acute threat of illness, permanent injury, and death.
Persons Incarcerated in Jails Face Grave and Immediate Danger Due to COVID-19. 37. People in congregate environments, which are places where people live, eat, and sleep in close proximity, face increased danger of contracting COVID-19, as already evidenced by the rapid spread of the virus in cruise ships45 and nursing homes.46 It is virtually impossible for people who are confined in prisons, jails, and detention centers to engage in the necessary physical distancing and hygiene required to mitigate the risk of transmission. This is demonstrated by dramatic outbreaks in the Cook County Jail47 and Rikers Island in New York City, where the transmission rate for COVID-19 is estimated to be the highest in the world.48 38. Correctional settings further increase the risk of contracting COVID-19 due to the high numbers of people with chronic, often untreated, illnesses housed in a setting with minimal levels of sanitation, limited access to personal hygiene, limited access to medical care, presence of many high-contact non-porous surfaces, and no possibility of staying at a distance from others.49
45 The CDC is currently recommending that travelers defer cruise ship travel worldwide. “Cruise ship passengers are at increased risk of person-to-person spread of infectious diseases, including COVID-19.” COVID-19 and Cruise Ship Travel, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://cutt.ly/7tEEQvT. 46 The CDC notes that long-term care facilities and nursing homes pose a particular risk because of “their congregate nature” and the residents served. Preparing for COVID-19: Long-term Care Facilities, Nursing Homes, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://cutt.ly/7tEEITH. 47 See supra note 19. 48 Supra note 14 49 Letter from Johns Hopkins Faculty, supra note 35; Velesaca v. Decker, 20-cv-1803 (S.D.N.Y.) at Doc. No. 42 (March 16, 2020) (Declaration of Dr. Jaimie Meyer) (noting, inter alia, that jails environments have reduced prevention opportunities, increased susceptibility, and are often poorly equipped to diagnose and manage outbreaks of infection disease).
15

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 30
39. Correctional facilities house large groups of people together, and move people in
groups to eat, recreate, and go to court.50 They frequently have insufficient medical care for the
population even outside times of crisis.51 Hot water, soap, and paper towels are often in limited
supply. Incarcerated people, rather than professional cleaners, are responsible for cleaning the
facilities52 and often are not given appropriate supplies.
40. Outbreaks of the flu regularly occur in jails, and during the H1N1 epidemic in 2009,
in which jails and prisons dealt with a disproportionately high number of cases.53
41. Numerous public health experts, including Dr. Gregg Gonsalves,54 Ross
MacDonald,55 Dr. Marc Stern,56 Dr. Oluwadamilola T. Oladeru and Adam Beckman,57 Dr. Anne
50 See, e.g, Nathalie Baptiste, Correctional Facilities are the Perfect Incubators for the Coronavirus, (March 6, 2020), https://cutt.ly/GtRSi3e. 51 See, e.g., Steve Coll, the Jail Health-Care Crisis, The New Yorker (Feb. 25, 2019), https://cutt.ly/ftERHNg. 52 See, e.g., Wendy Sawyer, How much do incarcerated people earn in each state?, Prison Policy Initiative, (April 10, 2017); https://cutt.ly/qtER2bh (noting that “custodial, maintenance, laundry” and “grounds keeping” are among the most common jobs for incarcerated people); North Carolina Dept. of Corrections, North Carolina Prison Inmates at Work, https://cutt.ly/jtERCbb (noting that cleaning the grounds and facilities is one of the jobs of incarcerated persons in North Carolina). 53 See, e.g., Meyer Dec., supra note 49 at ¶ 19; Golob Dec., supra note 28 at ¶ 13. This H1N1 “swine flu” pandemic outbreak spread dramatically in jails and prisons in 2010, but that strain of virus had a low fatality rate because of the characteristics of the virus—COVID-19’s fatality rate is far higher. David M. Reutter, Swine Flu Widespread in Prisons and Jails, but Deaths are Few (Feb. 15, 2010), https://cutt.ly/ytRSkuX. 54 Kelan Lyons, Elderly Prison Population Vulnerable to Potential Coronavirus Outbreak, Connecticut Mirror (March 11, 2020), https://cutt.ly/BtRSxCF. 55Craig McCarthy and Natalie Musumeci, Top Rikers Doctor: Coronavirus ‘Storm is Coming,’ New York Post (March 19, 2020), https://cutt.ly/ptRSnVo. 56 Marc F. Stern, MD, MPH, Washington State Jails Coronavirus Management Suggestions in 3 “Buckets,” Washington Assoc. of Sheriffs & Police Chiefs (March 5, 2020), https://cutt.ly/EtRSm4R. 57 Oluwadamilola T. Oladeru, et al., What COVID-19 Means for America’s Incarcerated Population – and How to Ensure It’s Not Left Behind, (March 10, 2020), https://cutt.ly/QtRSYNA.
16

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 30
Spaulding,58 Homer Venters,59 Jaimie Meyer,60 the faculty at Johns Hopkins schools of nursing,
medicine, and public health,61 and Josiah Rich62 have all strongly cautioned that people booked
into and held in jails are likely to face serious, even grave, harm due to the outbreak of COVID-
19.
Existing Procedures and Protocols at the Weld County Jail Are Not Sufficient to Ensure the Safety of the Plaintiffs, Class Members or the General Public
42. Because of the severity of the threat posed by COVID-19, and its potential to
rapidly spread throughout a correctional setting, public health experts recommend the rapid release
from custody of people most vulnerable to COVID-19.63 Release protects the people with the
greatest vulnerability to COVID-19 from transmission of the virus, and also allows for greater risk
mitigation for people held or working in a jail and the broader community.64 Release also reduces
the burden on the region’s health care infrastructure by reducing the likelihood that an
overwhelming number of people will become seriously ill from COVID-19 at the same time. It is
58 Anne C. Spaulding, MD MPDH, Coronavirus COVID-19 and the Correctional Jail, Emory Center for the Health of Incarcerated Persons (March 9, 2020). 59 Madison Pauly, To Arrest the Spread of Coronavirus, Arrest Fewer People, Mother Jones (March 12, 2020), https://cutt.ly/jtRSPnk. 60 Meyer Dec., supra note 49. 61 See, supra note 35. 62 Amanda Holpuch, Calls Mount to Free Low-risk US Inmates to Curb Coronavirus Impact on Prisons, The Guardian (March 13, 2020 3:00 p.m.), https://cutt.ly/itRSDNH. 63 See Meyer Dec., supra note 49 at ¶¶ 37–38 (noting that population reduction in jails will be “crucially important to reducing the level of risk both for those within [jail] facilities and for the community at large,” and that stemming the flow of intakes is a part of the necessary intervention); Greifinger Dec., supra note Error! Bookmark not defined. at ¶ 13 (“In my opinion, the public health recommendation is to release high-risk people from detention, given the heightened risks to their health and safety, especially given the lack of a viable vaccine for prevention or effective treatment at this stage.”); Dawson v. Asher, 20-cv-409 (W.D. Wash.) at Doc. No. 6, Declaration of Marc Stern at ¶¶ 9–10 (noting that release is “a critically important way to meaningfully mitigate” the risks of harm to persons who are at high risk of serious illness or death, as well as to support the broader community health infrastructure). 64 Id.
17

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 30
for these reasons that, in late March 2020, the Governor took executive action specifically urging that broad decarceration of county jails was necessary to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.65
43. Public health guidance put all sheriffs on notice of the dire risk of the spread of COVID-19 through jails without substantial changes to the jail environment. Additionally, on March 26, 2020, Sheriff Reams received a letter from the ACLU providing public health information regarding the dangers of the spread of the virus in jails, as well as the societal and constitutional obligation of jailers to allow prisoners, and particularly those in the high risk population, to practice physical distancing at all times in the jails. Attached to the ACLU letter was a letter from infectious disease expert at University of Colorado Anschutz which made clear that, to protect inmates, they must be housed in a manner that allows them to sleep, socialize and eat while maintain a six foot distance from others. Dr. Franco-Paredes explained:
To contain the spread of the disease, infection prevention protocols must be meticulously followed. These infection prevention protocols include “social distancing” measures, where individuals maintain a distance of at least six feet from each other and frequent hand-washing and other good hygiene practices. . . . In a carceral setting, these protocols would require, for example, that individuals sleep one person per cell, rather than in bunk beds. 44. Despite being aware of likely COVID-19 infection in the jail, Defendant Reams failed to act promptly and took almost no precautionary measures for weeks after COVID-19 was spreading through Colorado. As a result of these failures, at least one inmate and f staff tested positive for Covid-19 by no later than April 1, 2020. The infected inmate had been at the jail for over a year; so, it is likely that there is internal spread within the jail. More recent reports indicate that multiple inmates and at least four deputies have tested positive with dozens more inmates
65 Available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1q7wkqi-NeU5nmuFcBQwn-6CryTKdYJ5P/view (“Reducing the numbers of those arrested or incarcerated is vital to our efforts to limit and prevent the spread of COVID-19 in our communities, detention centers and prisons.”).
18

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 30
showing symptoms consistent with COVID-19. The infection is now almost certainly widespread in the Weld County Jail.
45. Weld County is the sixth most populous jail in Colorado. Of the ten most populous Colorado jails, Weld County Jail stands out as having the lowest depopulation rate since the start of the COVID-19 crisis and the highest jail occupancy rate.
46. Unlike many other Colorado sheriffs, Defendant Sheriff Reams has refused to take the public health risk or data seriously.
47. Defendant Reams has scoffed at Gubernatorial guidance and actions by the Department of Corrections to decarcerate.66 He has even posted a “Get out of Jail Free Card” from the child’s board game Monopoly to underscore his disagreement with actions to depopulate jails in order to allow physical distancing.67 Defendant Reams has further boasted that, despite all public health recommendations to the contrary, he can manage the virus without releasing inmates.68
48. Defendant Reams’ deliberate indifference to the reality of this crisis is particularly alarming given the current state of affairs in Weld County. Weld County is a hot spot for the COVID-19 outbreak in Colorado. As of April 6, 2020, it has the fourth highest number of infections and the fifth highest concentration of infections by population compared to all other
66 See, e.g., https://coloradotimesrecorder.com/2020/03/weld-sheriff-id-rather-take-my-risk-withthe-virus-than-socialism/22199/. 67 See https://www.facebook.com/SteveReamsForWeldCountySheriff/posts/1524469844396739 68 Id. (“I haven’t closed the Weld County Jail nor have I started releasing prisoners because of the Covid 19 virus; and I don’t intend to do so. The Weld County Jail has very competent and effective medical staff to handle this crisis and we will work closely with the Weld County Health Department to get through these tough times if the need arises.”).
19

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 30
counties.69 With 24 COVID-19 related deaths as of April 6, Weld County has the second highest number of deaths compared to any other county in the state, surpassing Denver.70
49. The failure to act to substantially reduce the Weld County Jail inmate population is alarming given the county-wide infection rate and death rate. Weld County correctional staff work mostly in the Weld County, daily interacting with inmates in a crowded environment and then returning home to their families. And, of course, Weld County inmates are commonly released to the community, with an average of about 30 released inmates per day. There is no line, thin or otherwise, between the health of Weld County inmates, the health of Weld County correctional staff, and the health of Weld County as a whole.
50. Defendant Reams has demonstrated throughout this crisis an unwillingness or inability to safely care for people in his custody. For weeks, Defendant Reams cavalierly refused to take any apparent precautions whatsoever within the facility. No testing for COVID-19 of people suffering from apparent COVID-19 symptoms occurred, no physical distancing occurred, and inadequate sanitation was widespread.
51. Recently, on or about April 1—and only after the outbreak of COVID-19 in the facility evidenced by the positive tests—Defendant Reams suddenly implemented a 23-hour a day lockdown of detainees and inmates in their cells, with only 1 hour per day out. This Draconian measure not only comes too little too late, the crowded cells and shared spaces make it impossible to safely house people without spreading disease.
52. Currently, people are still held in pods of 40 or more individuals, with at least 3-4 people to a cell (and in some cases as many as 9 in a cell). Within each cell, the numerous people
69 https://covid19.colorado.gov/case-data 70 Id.
20

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 30
housed therein cannot maintain adequate physical distance and will inevitably infect each other with COVID-19. Moreover, during the 1 hour per day they are permitted out, two cells are let out at a time, for up to 12 (sometimes more) people congregating in a common area. Adequate distancing and sanitation remain impossible. Additionally, throughout the day, even those individuals on lockdown are permitted to leave their cells to use the shared toilet, go to medical, use the phones, and other limited purposes. Thus, at any given time in the common area 15 or more people still congregate, stand and walk in close proximity, touch the same surfaces, and cannot maintain adequate distance.
53. A typical pod shares about 4 toilets total, 2 on each floor of the pod. So, for a pod of 40-50 men, all 40-50 of them use 4 toilets to defecate, one after another throughout the day. They use the same sink and bathroom area, touch the same surfaces, use the same hand railings, sit on the same toilets, touch the same dispensers, and pass each other in close proximity. Often, they run out of soap and are unable even to wash their hands after using the toilet. Because COVID19 spreads through fecal matter as well as saliva, these crowded conditions and shared spaces make it impossible for inmates to maintain safe sanitation or distancing. The design and operation of the jail do not allow for physical distancing and, in fact, fail to meet the public health guidelines set by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Education (CDPHE).
54. In pods of 40-60 individuals, as many as half are displaying potential COVID-19 symptoms, yet very few have been tested for the virus. Meanwhile, multiple sick people have tested negative for the flu, even more strongly suggesting they may be infected with COVID-19.
55. Alarmingly, jail officials are not removing sick people out of the communal pods unless they have at least 4 symptoms. In at least the A Pod, jail personnel wrote on a poster that
21

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 30
you have to have coughing, fever, sore throat, etc. (at least 4 symptoms) to be pulled out of the pod and presumably quarantined.
56. Also alarming, in the kitchen, inmate workers have been displaying symptoms consistent with COVID-19. Given that the jail feeds approximately 600 people held in custody, sick kitchen workers handling food and distributing trays means the entire facility may be exposed and infected. Yet, none of the inmates who work in the kitchen are even being provided masks.
57. Inmates have requested masks but the jail has refused to provide them. Moreover, when some inmates have worn homemade masks or put towels around their face in an attempt to protect themselves, jail staff have instructed them to stop and remove the masks. The jail is not only failing to provide masks, it is actively preventing people from wearing them or taking other precautions.
58. Furthermore, the jail is failing to adequately educate inmates or to provide access to up to date information about COVID-19, making precautions even more difficult to achieve. The jail has failed to educate inmates on appropriate sanitation precautions, physical distancing, the importance of wearing masks (which, as alleged above, it is in fact preventing inmates from wearing), how the virus spreads, how it affects the body, or other basic medical information that is necessary for the community within the jail to protect itself. The jail has also sought to cut off inmate access to public news reports about COVID-19. Inmates have been left effectively in the dark as Defendant Reams and the jail have failed to protect them.
59. Additionally, the jail is not taking adequate precautions to protect vulnerable people or to quarantine people with symptoms. For instance, a detainee who was recently booked into the jail has moderate to severe asthma, which places him at higher risk of fatality if he were to contract the virus. This individual was held in Weld County Jail booking and not given his asthma
22

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 30
medication. While held in booking without his medication, he suffered an asthma attack. His cellmates worked to try to keep him calm throughout this asthma attack as it took a very long time for medical personnel to arrive. When they finally arrived, the detainee told them that in addition to his asthma attack he was also coughing. In response, the medical personnel in the Jail advised him that he “probably just had a cold” and took no further steps to attempt to isolate him from the general jail population or to determine if he might have the COVID-19 virus.
60. The jail has failed to adequately protect any of the named Plaintiffs, including but far from limited to physical distancing at all times.
61. Therefore, the jail is, with deliberate indifference, failing to take adequate precautions to avoid the spread of potential COVID-19 in the facility, and the operation of the jail. The jail is instead deliberately indifferently facilitating the spread of the disease. In fact, it is hard to envision more ideal conditions for the spread of COVID-19. Of particular concern, some of the sick individuals, as well as other not yet visibly ill inmates, fall into the category of high-risk of critical illness and mortality from COVID-19 according to CDC guidelines.
62. The Weld County Jail must respond to and manage the continued risk of harm posed by the COVID-19 outbreak by following CDC71 and other public health guidelines. This requires, among other things: (a) physically distancing all inmates from one another and staff within the Weld County Jail, which necessitates at least six feet of distance between individuals at all times; (b) on a daily basis, thoroughly and professionally disinfecting and sanitizing the Weld County Jail; (c) providing hygiene supplies, including supplies to wash hands and disinfect
71 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidancecorrectional-detention.html.
23

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 30

common areas, to inmates at all times and free of charge; (d) providing personal protective

equipment, including but not limited to masks, to all staff members and inmates; (e) taking

particularly heightened precautions with respect to food handling and delivery, such as ensuring

that people who come into contact with food are not displaying any potential symptoms of COVID-

19, have not recently been in contact with people displaying potential symptoms of COVID-19,

and people who come into contact with food wear appropriate personal protection at all times when

in contact with food (including but not limited to appropriate masks and gloves); (f) implementing

appropriate policies and protocols to identify inmates who are possibly carrying COVID-19 and

quarantine those inmates from other individuals; and (g) providing accurate, up-to-date

educational and informational materials regarding sanitation and prevention of COVID-19, the

status of how COVID-19 is affecting the facility including the number of infected inmates and

staff, and daily access to news reports regarding COVID-19.

63. Finally, Plaintiffs have fully exhausted all administrative remedies available to

them.

IV.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

64. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedures on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals.

65. As explained more fully in Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, Plaintiffs seek

certification of the following class of individuals:

All current and future persons held at the Weld County Jail who are at high risk of complications from COVID-19 because:

(a) they are age 55 or older; or

(b) they have the following chronic health conditions: cancer; autoimmune disease (including lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, Sjogren’s, Crohn’s); chronic lung disease (including asthma, chronic obstructive

24

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 30

pulmonary disease, bronchiectasis, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis or other chronic conditions associated with impaired lung function); history of cardiovascular disease; chronic arthritis; chronic liver or kidney disease; diabetes; hypertension; heart failure; HIV; on chronic steroids or other immunosuppressant medications for chronic conditions;

(c) they have history of smoking or other substance abuse disorders; or

(d) they are pregnant.

66. Class certification is proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) if: (1) the

class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or

fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the

claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect

the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). This is further explained in Plaintiffs’ motion for

class certification.

67. In addition, the proposed class must be certifiable under one of the three sub-

provisions of Rule 23(b). Here, Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule 23(b)(2), because the party

opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby

making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the

class as a whole. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). This is further explained in Plaintiffs’ motion for class

certification.

V.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Unconstitutional Conditions of Confinement in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiffs Carranza, Martinez, Barnum, Lewis, Ward and the Class They Represent

68. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, corrections officials are required to provide for

the reasonable health and safety of persons in pretrial custody. Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307,

25

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 30
315–16, 324 (1982) (the state has an “unquestioned duty to provide adequate . . . medical care” for detained persons).
69. As part of the right, the government must provide incarcerated persons with reasonable safety and address serious medical needs that arise in jail to at least the same degree of persons in custody subsequent to a conviction. Deliberate indifference to the serious risk COVID19 poses to Plaintiffs and members of the Class violates this right.
70. The Weld County Jail has unconstitutionally failed to comply with public health guidelines to prevent or manage an outbreak of COVID-19 and unconstitutionally failed to provide for the safety of the individually named Plaintiffs and the Class. Defendant’s actions and inactions result in the confinement of these Plaintiffs and Class members people in a jail where their rights to reasonably safe conditions of confinement and adequate medical care are being violated.
71. Accordingly, Defendant Reams, as a supervisor, direct participant, and policy maker for Weld County has violated the rights of Plaintiffs and the Class under the Fourteenth Amendment.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Unconstitutional Conditions of Confinement in Violation of the Eighth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Plaintiffs Propes, Hunter, and the Class They Represent 72. Under the Eighth Amendment, persons in carceral custody have a right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. As part of the right, the government must provide incarcerated persons with reasonable safety and address serious medical needs that arise in jail. See, e.g., Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104; DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 200. Deliberate indifference to the serious risk COVID-19 poses to Plaintiffs and the members of Class infringes on the protection from cruel and
26

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 30

unusual punishment. Defendant violates this right by subjecting members of the Class and

Plaintiffs Propes and Hunter to conditions of confinement that do not ensure their safety and health.

73. The Weld County Jail has unconstitutionally failed to comply with public health

guidelines to prevent or manage an outbreak of COVID-19 and unconstitutionally failed to provide

for the safety of Plaintiff Propes, Hunter, and the Class. Defendant’s actions and inactions result

in the confinement of these Plaintiffs and the Class in a jail where their rights to reasonably safe

conditions of confinement and adequate medical care are being violated.

74. Accordingly, Defendant Reams, as a supervisor, direct participant, and policy

maker for Weld County has violated the rights of Plaintiffs and the Class under the Eighth

Amendment.

VI.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

75. Plaintiffs, for themselves and for the members of the proposed Class, respectfully

request that the Court order the following:

1. Certification of this action as a Class Action;

2. A temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and/or permanent injunction

requiring Defendant to:

a. Physically distance all inmates from one another and staff within the Weld

County Jail, which necessitates at least six feet of distance between individuals at

all times;

b. On a daily basis, thoroughly and professionally disinfect and sanitize the Weld

County Jail;

c. Provide hygiene supplies, including supplies to wash hands and disinfect common

areas, to inmates at all times and free of charge;

27

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 30
d. Provide personal protective equipment, including but not limited to masks, to all staff members and inmates;
e. Take particularly heightened precautions with respect to food handling and delivery, such as ensuring that people who come into contact with food are not displaying any potential symptoms of COVID-19, have not recently been in contact with people displaying potential symptoms of COVID-19, and people who come into contact with food wear appropriate personal protection at all times when in contact with food (including but not limited to appropriate masks and gloves);
f. Implement appropriate policies and protocols to identify inmates who are possibly carrying COVID-19 and quarantine those inmates from other individuals; and
g. provide accurate, up-to-date educational and informational materials regarding sanitation and prevention of COVID-19, the status of how COVID-19 is affecting the facility including the number of infected inmates and staff, and daily access to news reports regarding COVID-19.
3. A declaration that jail’s policies violate the Fourteenth Amendment rights to reasonable safety and to be free from punishment prior to conviction;
4. A declaration that jail’s policies violate the Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment;
5. An award of Plaintiffs’ attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1988 and other applicable law; and
6. Any further relief this Court deems appropriate. Dated: April 7, 2020
28

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 30
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Andy McNulty Andy McNulty Michael P. Fairhurst David A. Lane Darold W. Killmer KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP 1543 Champa St. Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 571-1000 (303) 571-1001 Facsimile amcnulty@kln-law.com mfairhurst@kln-law.com dlane@kln-law.com dkillmer@kn-law.com
and
David G. Maxted Maxted Law LLC 1543 Champa Street Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 720-717-0877 Fax: 720-500-1251 dave@maxtedlaw.com
and
Jamie Hughes Hubbard STIMSON STANCIL LABRANCHE HUBBARD, LLC Phone: 720.689.8909 Email: hubbard@sslhlaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs Carranza, Martinez, Propes, and Hunter
Mark Silverstein Rebecca T. Wallace Sara R. Neel AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF COLORADO 303 E. 17th Avenue, Suite 350 Denver, Colorado 80203 (720) 402-3114 msilverstein@aclu-co.org
29

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 30
rtwallace@aclu-co.org sneel@aclu-co.org and Daniel D. Williams Lauren E. Groth HUTCHINSON BLACK AND COOK, LLC 921 Walnut Street, Suite 200 Boulder, Colorado 80302 (303) 442-6514 Williams@hbcboulder.com Groth@hbcboulder.com In cooperation with the ACLU Foundation of Colorado Counsel for Plaintiffs Barnum and Lewis
30

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 43
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00977-PAB THOMAS CARRANZA; JESUS MARTINEZ; RICHARD BARNUM; THOMAS LEWIS; MICHAEL WARD; COLBY PROPES; and CHAD HUNTER,
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND EXPEDITED HEARING [ECF 1]
Defendant Sheriff Steven Reams (“Sheriff”), the elected Sheriff for the County of Weld, State of Colorado, by and through counsel, Matthew J. Hegarty, Esq., Andrew D. Ringel, Esq., and John F. Peters, Esq., of Hall & Evans, L.L.C., submits his Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order ... and Expedited Hearing [ECF 1] and requests Plaintiffs’ Motion be denied in its entirety,1 as follows:
1 In compliance with the Court’s April 8, 2020, Minute Order, the Sheriff responds to ECF 1 only insofar as it seeks a temporary restraining order and expedited hearing. The Sheriff reserves the right to respond further to the Motion insofar as it seeks a preliminary injunction. This Response was filed before April 13, 2020, at 9:00 AM MDT.

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 43
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ECF 1, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order ... and Expedited Hearing (“Motion”) asks this Court to serve as the Keeper of the Weld County Jail instead of its elected Sheriff. While the current pandemic brought on by the novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”) presents unprecedented challenges for all Americans, no basis exists for this Court to depart from the applicable law governing granting the type of mandatory and systemic injunctive relief Plaintiffs demand from the Sheriff of Weld County. This Court’s evaluation of the facts presented in this Response must be undertaken against the background of the applicable law set forth in this Response. A myriad of legal, factual, and practical barriers exist to the wholesale relief Plaintiffs seek from this Court. Since the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Sheriff and his deputies have worked hard to determine an appropriate response that sufficiently advances all the different applicable interests—the need to operate the Weld County Jail; the need to protect the safety and health of inmates, detainees, and staff; and the need to protect the public of Weld County and Colorado. As set forth in the Sheriff’s Declaration that accompanies this Response, the Sheriff and his staff have engaged and continue to engage in ongoing efforts to meet all of these goals. The Sheriff and undersigned counsel strongly believe any review of the totality of the Sheriff’s efforts and of the Weld County Sheriff’s Office’s efforts demonstrate appropriate steps have been taken from a wide variety of angles to protect all applicable interests. To the extent any areas of improvement can be identified, the Sheriff welcomes the input of everyone to continue to improve all aspects of the operations of the Weld County Jail. At its bottom, the issue
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 43
before this Court is not whether the Sheriff has been able to adopt any specific aspect of the Centers for Disease Control guidelines adopted generally for the entire United States and not specifically suited for the unique circumstances of a correctional facility. Instead, the issue this Court must determine is whether Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights have been violated. Fundamentally, based on the entire record before this Court as set forth in this Response, the short answer (and the full answer) to that fundamental question is, “No.”
For the below reasons, Plaintiffs’ claims are moot, and Plaintiffs’ effort suffers from crippling procedural and substantive infirmities. Plaintiffs are thus unable to satisfy the heightened burden necessary to attain injunctive relief at this juncture. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order ... and Expedited Hearing must be denied in its entirety.
II. RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENT AS TO NOTICE TO DEFENDANT The Sheriff’s counsel disagrees with Plaintiffs’ statement in their “Notice to
Defendant.” The Sheriff’s counsel did not “indicate[] that Defendant opposes the relief sought herein.” [ECF 1, at 28]. Rather, counsel for the Sheriff conferred extensively with counsel for Plaintiffs before Plaintiffs filed ECF 1 and counsel were still in the process of conferring when ECF 1 was filed. Nevertheless, upon review of the as-filed version of ECF 1, and for the reasons stated below, the Sheriff’s counsel states ECF 1 is opposed.
III. COUNTER-STATEMENT OF FACTS Filed with this Response is the Declaration of Sheriff Steven Reams, Defendant. [See Decl. of Sheriff Steven Reams, Exhibit A]. The Sheriff’s Declaration, along with an dossier of attachments comprising emails, protocols, and other documents substantiating the Declaration’s contents, sets forth the comprehensive and sustained effort the Weld
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 43
County Sheriff’s Office (“WCSO”), under the Sheriff’s leadership, has brought to bear to address the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the operations of the Weld County Jail (“WCJ”) and to ensure inmate health and safety as much as reasonably practicable. Beginning in late February 2020, the Sheriff and the WCSO have taken substantial steps to generate, implement, and refine the policies and protocols of the WCSO to address the COVID-19 pandemic. WCSO protocols and processes incorporated national guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”), state directives from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (“CDPHE”), and local information and guidance from the Weld County Health Department (“WCHD”). All decisions made by the Sheriff and the WCSO and adopted at the WCJ related to the COVID-19 pandemic have been made based on an assessment of the health and safety needs of the inmates, WCSO employees, and the public. All decisions made by the Sheriff and the WCSO and adopted at the WCJ related to the COVID-19 pandemic also were made based on distinct operational needs of a jail, the physical plant, structure, and layout of WCJ, and the resources and supplies available to the WCSO. The Sheriff and the WCSO persist in evaluating and responding to the different events which occurred since before COVID-19 became an issue for the WCSO generally and at the WCJ specifically and will continue to do so. [See Sheriff Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 6].
Rather than set forth the details of the Sheriff’s and the WCSO’s response as included in the Sheriff’s Declaration, the Court is referred to the Declaration and specific references in the argument below are made to the Declaration as appropriate.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 43
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW Plaintiffs incorrectly state the standard for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) or other injunctive relief, as relevant to the relief Plaintiffs request. Injunctive relief is an extraordinarily drastic remedy and is granted only in cases where the right to relief is clearly established. See Goldammer v. Fay, 326 F.2d 268, 270 (10th Cir. 1964). The movants bear the burden to establish their right to relief. Penn v. San Juan Hospital, Inc., 528 F.2d 1181, 1185 (10th Cir. 1975). Further, “[TROs] and preliminary injunctions differ in how long they can last. Temporary restraining orders can last no more than fourteen days; preliminary injunctions can last longer. When a temporary restraining order lasts longer than fourteen days, it becomes appealable as a preliminary injunction. This is true even if the district court labels its order a temporary restraining order.” Tooele Cnty. v. United States, 820 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 2016) (footnote omitted) (citation omitted) (concluding District Court violated Anti-Injunction Act by issuing injunctive relief which had effect of enjoining state court proceedings). The Sheriff agrees that to obtain a TRO (as with a preliminary injunction), Plaintiffs must prove four elements: (1) they will suffer irreparable injury unless the relief issues; (2) the threatened injury outweighs whatever damages the relief might cause the Sheriff’s ability to operate the WCJ; (3) such injunctive relief will not be adverse to the public interest; and (4) Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their case. Schrier v. Univ. of Colo., 427 F.3d 1253, 1258 (10th Cir. 2005) (affirming denial of injunctive relief); Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245, 1251 (10th Cir. 2010) (same).
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 43
Injunctive relief is “extraordinary” and should not issue unless the right to relief is “clear and unequivocal.” Kikumura v. Hurley, 242 F.3d 950, 955 (10th Cir. 2001).
Plaintiffs next argue, however, that “where the moving party has established that the three ‘harm’ factors tip decidedly in its favor, the ‘probability of success’ requirement is relaxed[.]” [ECF 1, at 30 (quoting Star Fuel Marts, LLC v. Sam’s East, Inc., 362 F.3d 639, 652-53 (10th Cir. 2004)]. This is the wrong standard. Rather, in these circumstances, Plaintiffs labor under a “heightened burden” for injunctive relief, a burden imposed where the sought-after relief: (1) disturbs the status quo; (2) is mandatory instead of prohibitory; or (3) affords the movant substantially all the relief it may recover after a full merits trial. SCFC ILC, Inc. v. VISA USA, Inc., 936 F.2d 1096, 1098-99 (10th Cir. 1991); accord O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 973, 975 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (“O Centro”), aff’d on other grounds sub nom., Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006); see also In re HomeAdvisor, Inc. Litig., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141984, at *11-14 (D. Colo. Aug. 20, 2019) (Brimmer, C.J.) (discussing whether injunction disturbs status quo or is mandatory). Plaintiffs “must make a strong showing both with regard to the likelihood of success on the merits and with regard to the balance of harms, and may not rely on our modified likelihood-of-success-on-the-merits standard.” O Centro, 389 F.3d at 976. This is so because “[s]uch disfavored injunctions ‘must be more closely scrutinized to assure that the exigencies of the case support the granting of a remedy that is extraordinary even in the normal course.’” Schrier, 427 F.3d at 1259 (quoting O Centro, 389 F.3d at 975).
6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 43
First, the “status quo” is not defined by “the parties’ existing legal rights,” but by “the reality of the existing status and relationships between the parties, regardless of whether the existing status and relationships may ultimately be found to be in accord or not in accord with the parties’ legal rights.” SCFC ILC, 936 F.2d at 1100. Second, mandatory injunctions are more burdensome than prohibitory ones because they compel the nonmovant to act affirmatively in a particular way, and hence necessitate potential ongoing supervision to assure the nonmovant is abiding by the injunction. Id. at 1099. Third, injunctive relief awarding the movants substantially all the relief to which they may be entitled if it succeeded on the merits echoes the “Sentence first, Verdict Afterwards” procedure parodied in Alice in Wonderland, anathema to the American system of jurisprudence. See id. at 1099 & n.4. Here, Plaintiffs ask this Court to immediately order the Sheriff and the WCJ to put in place numerous requirements, or alternatively, begin the wholesale release of those incarcerated and detained in the WCJ. Plaintiffs’ requested injunctive relief requires the Sheriff to take affirmative action, making the injunctive relief quintessentially mandatory. Clearly, the requested relief fundamentally would alter the status quo. Among other relief, Plaintiffs ask this Court to order the Sheriff and the WCJ “be required to physically distance all inmates from one another and staff within the [WCJ]” or “alternatively ask this Court to order the transfer of a sufficient number of inmates to electronic home monitoring to allow for appropriate physical distancing within the Weld County Jail.” [ECF 1, at 6-7]. This extraordinary request alters the status quo, either by changing the bond conditions or sentences of dozens to hundreds of inmates,
7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 43
which the Sheriff has no power to do under state law,2 or by requiring the Sheriff to put in place directives to WCJ deputies to forcefully ensure compliance with social distancing.3
Fourth, Plaintiffs ask the Court to immediately order the full relief sought in the Complaint, before any discovery, trial, or dispositive briefing. For all of these reasons, Plaintiffs must meet the heightened standard for disfavored injunctive relief.
Finally, Plaintiffs’ demand for injunctive relief is not only subject to the heightened standard of a mandatory injunction. It is also subject to the limitations and requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) discussed at length below.
Hence, this Court must subject Plaintiffs’ application for injunctive relief to the extraordinary scrutiny it warrants under the circumstances of this case.
V. ARGUMENT Several substantive and fully applicable statutes and bodies of caselaw, some of which are conspicuously absent from Plaintiffs’ Motion, must inform the Court’s decision on the propriety of granting the sought-after injunctive relief which would come with a
2 As discussed later in this Response, the Court lacks the authority to change inmates’ bond conditions and sentences, as only Colorado state courts have jurisdiction over bond conditions and sentences of WCJ inmates; this is not a habeas corpus action but a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action; and federal courts lack authority to enjoin state courts through a § 1983 action in most circumstances, based on the plain terms of § 1983.
3 Plaintiffs have not given this Court any direction for how the Sheriff could enforce social distancing in the WCJ. Would the Court authorize all necessary force to maintain a six-foot distance between all inmates at all times even in the face of inmate refusal? Would tasers be permitted if inmates refused to socially distance? Could any inmate who refused be put in indefinite solitary confinement? Would deputies acting under the Court Order to ensure social distancing be immune from suit alleging excessive force in ensuring compliance with the Order? As such, Plaintiffs’ request to ensure social distancing opens a Pandora’s Box of legal conundrums and § 1983 claims, none of which Plaintiffs appear to have considered.
8

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 43
TRO and expedited hearing. When those substantive and fully applicable legal principles are applied to the true and correct timeline and factual scenario presented with this Response, it is apparent Plaintiffs cannot satisfy any of the four elements necessary to grant injunctive relief. Thus, this Court should deny the Motion and should preclude issuance of the sought-after injunctive relief and expedited hearing. A. The Prison Litigation Reform Act Both Governs and Limits Plaintiffs’ Claims
Plaintiffs omit any mention of the PLRA or the impact of the PLRA on their claims and claimed entitlement to injunctive relief against the Sheriff.
Plaintiffs’ claims inarguably are subject to the PLRA. See, e.g., Wolfson v. United States, 336 F. App’x 792, 794-95 (10th Cir. 2009) (“prisoner” in PLRA includes individuals accused of criminal law violations and those sentenced criminally); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(h) (defining “prisoner” as “any person incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program”).
The PLRA “imposes limits on the scope and duration of preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.” Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 650 (2004). The “new standards for injunctive and prospective relief” provided by the PLRA underscores the fact “the PLRA ‘strongly disfavors continuing relief through the federal courts; indeed, its fundamental purpose [is] to extricate them from managing state prisons.’” Porter v. Graves, 597 F. App’x 964, 967 (10th Cir. 2014) (quoting Guajardo v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice, 363 F.3d 392, 394 (5th Cir. 2004)). Specifically, the PLRA provides the following requirements from Congress which governs TROs and both preliminary and permanent injunctive relief:
9

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 43
(a) Requirements for relief.
(1) Prospective relief.
(A) Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.
(B) The court shall not order any prospective relief that requires or permits a government official to exceed his or her authority under State or local law or otherwise violates State or local law, unless—
(i) Federal law requires such relief to be ordered in violation of State or local law;
(ii) the relief is necessary to correct the violation of a Federal right; and
(iii) no other relief will correct the violation of the Federal right.
(C) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the courts, in exercising their remedial powers, to order the construction of prisons or the raising of taxes, or to repeal or detract from otherwise applicable limitations on the remedial powers of the courts.
(2) Preliminary injunctive relief. In any civil action with respect to prison conditions, to the extent otherwise authorized by law, the court may enter a temporary restraining order or an order for preliminary injunctive relief. Preliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the preliminary relief and shall respect the principles of comity set out in paragraph (1)(B) in tailoring any preliminary relief. Preliminary injunctive relief shall automatically expire on the date that is 90 days after its entry, unless the court makes the findings
10

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 43
required under subsection (a)(1) for the entry of prospective relief and makes the order final before the expiration of the 90-day period.
(3) Prisoner release order.
(A) In any civil action with respect to prison conditions, no court shall enter a prisoner release order unless—
(i) a court has previously entered an order for less intrusive relief that has failed to remedy the deprivation of the Federal right sought to be remedied through the prisoner release order; and
(ii) the defendant has had a reasonable amount of time to comply with the previous court orders.
(B) In any civil action in Federal court with respect to prison conditions, a prisoner release order shall be entered only by a threejudge court in accordance with section 2284 of title 28, if the requirements of subparagraph (E) have been met.
(C) A party seeking a prisoner release order in Federal court shall file with any request for such relief, a request for a three-judge court and materials sufficient to demonstrate that the requirements of subparagraph (A) have been met.
(D) If the requirements under subparagraph (A) have been met, a Federal judge before whom a civil action with respect to prison conditions is pending who believes that a prison release order should be considered may sua sponte request the convening of a threejudge court to determine whether a prisoner release order should be entered.
(E) The three-judge court shall enter a prisoner release order only if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that—
(i) crowding is the primary cause of the violation of a Federal right; and
(ii) no other relief will remedy the violation of the Federal right.
(F) Any State or local official including a legislator or unit of government whose jurisdiction or function includes the appropriation of funds for the construction, operation, or maintenance of prison
11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 43
facilities, or the prosecution or custody of persons who may be released from, or not admitted to, a prison as a result of a prisoner release order shall have standing to oppose the imposition or continuation in effect of such relief and to seek termination of such relief, and shall have the right to intervene in any proceeding relating to such relief. 18 U.S.C. § 3626. The injunctive relief provisions of the PLRA have significant implications for the relief requested in Plaintiffs’ Motion. First, any TRO or other inchoate injunctive relief “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); see also Biodiversity Assocs. v. Cables, 357 F.3d 1152, 1167 (10th Cir. 2004) (PLRA “had set new limits on the power of courts to give injunctive relief to prisoners, requiring (among other things) that any injunctive relief granted be both narrowly drawn to correct the violation of federal rights and also the least intrusive means of correcting the violation. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A).”); Martinez v. Maketa, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60711, at *10 (D. Colo. June 7, 2011) (“”Prior to granting injunctive relief in a prison conditions case, the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires this Court to find that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.”). Second, in crafting such relief, this Court “shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the preliminary relief and shall respect the principles of comity set out in paragraph (1)(B) in tailoring any preliminary relief.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). “Under the PLRA, federal courts
12

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 43
are prohibited from becoming involved in the actions of the state’s correctional system absent compelling reasons. A court considering whether to grant injunctive relief in a prisoner case must give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of the criminal justice system.” Oken v. Sizer, 321 F. Supp. 2d 658, 666-67 (D. Md.), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 917 (2004).
Third, no court can issue a prison release order until it “has previously entered an order for less intrusive relief that has failed to remedy the deprivation of the Federal right sought to be remedied through the prisoner release order” and the jail “has had a reasonable amount of time to comply with the previous court orders.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(a)(i) & (ii); see, e.g., Roberts v. Cnty. of Mahoning, 495 F. Supp. 2d 694, 698 (N.D. Ohio 2006) (recognizing requirement under the PLRA “that the Defendants have been given an opportunity to correct the problem of jail overcrowding and have been unable to do so without further intervention by this Court.”).
Fourth, any prison release order requires a court order from a three-judge panel. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(B)-(E); Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 514 (2011); United States v. Cook Cnty., 761 F. Supp. 2d 794, 797 (N.D. Ill. 2011). The procedures for appointing a three-judge court are found at 28 U.S.C. § 2284.
Fifth, “the PLRA requires that district courts issuing prospective relief in cases involving prison conditions make certain findings in order for that relief to conform to the law.” Alloway v. Hodge, 72 F. App’x 812, 815 (10th Cir. 2003). Any failure by a District Court to make these required factual findings under the PLRA is reversible error. Doe v. Cook Cnty., 798 F.3d 558, 564 (7th Cir. 2015).
13

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 43
Any consideration by this Court of Plaintiffs’ requested relief must comply with all these provisions of the PLRA. Like the mandatory injunctive relief requested by Plaintiffs here, the PLRA’s requirements for injunctive relief also pose a substantial barrier to this Court ordering any such relief. B. Deference Is Due to the Expertise and Judgment of Correctional Officials
Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief must also be evaluated in the context of the ability and expertise of the Sheriff to appropriately and effectively operate the Weld County Jail, and the concomitant necessitation for the Court to defer to such expertise.
The Supreme Court of the United States has long recognized the need for federal courts to exercise deference to, and restraint in connection with, operations decisions by correctional officials. “[P]roblems that arise in the day-to-day operation of a corrections facility are not susceptible to easy solutions. Prison administrators therefore should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1979); Romo v. Champion, 446 F.3d 1013, 1015 (10th Cir. 1995).
The Supreme Court’s deference to prison officials arises in part from the expertise those officials possess. Bell, 441 U.S. at 548; Jones v. N.C. Prisoners’ Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119, 128 (1977). “[W]e accord prison authorities deference as they undertake that complex job.” Williams v. Taylor, 561 F. App’x 695, 699 (10th Cir. 2014). “We must accord substantial deference to the professional judgment of prison administrators, who bear a significant responsibility for defining the legitimate goals of a
14

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 43
corrections system and for determining the most appropriate means to accomplish them.” Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003).
The Supreme Court recognizes deference is also appropriate on separation of powers grounds. “[T]he operation of our correctional facilities is peculiarly the province of the Legislative and Judicial Branches of our Government, not the Judicial.” Bell, 441 U.S. at 548. “[I]t is not the role of the federal judiciary to scrutinize and interfere with the daily operations of a state prison.” Peterson v. Shanks, 149 F.3d 1140, 1144 (10th Cir. 1998). Courts have no power “to supervise prison administration or to interfere with the ordinary prison rules or regulations.” Banning v. Looney, 213 F.2d 771, 771 (10th Cir. 1954).
“Application of this deferential standard ensures that ‘prison administrators ..., and not the courts, [are] to make the difficult judgments concerning institutional operations.’” United States v. Rivera, 83 F. Supp. 3d 1130, 1133 (D. Colo. 2015) (quoting Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)). “[T]here is a strong public interest in affording substantial deference to prison officials in managing the daily operations of a prison due to the unique nature, needs and concerns of the prison environment.” Pinson v. Pacheco, 424 F. App’x 749, 756 (10th Cir. 2011). “Running a prison is an inordinately difficult undertaking that requires expertise, planning, and the commitment of resources, all of which are peculiarly within the province of the legislative and executive branches of government. Prison administration is, moreover, a task that has been committed to the responsibility of those branches, and separation of powers concerns counsel a policy of judicial restraint. Where a state penal system is involved, federal courts have, as we indicated in Martinez,
15

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 43
additional reason to accord deference to the appropriate prison authorities.’” Turner, 482 U.S. at 85 (citing Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 405 (1974)).
This Court’s evaluation of the Sheriff’s and the WCJ’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic must be undertaken in light of the strong deference this Court must show to jail administrators and officials under these precedents. See, e.g., Orwig v. Williams, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169556 (D. Colo. Sept. 30, 2019) (Brimmer, C.J.) (evaluating RLUIPA claim under Turner in the prison context and recognizing deference due prison officials); Silverstein v. Fed. Bur. of Prisons, 704 F. Supp. 2d 1077, 1095 (D. Colo. 2010) (Brimmer, C.J.) (“On issue of prison management and placement of inmates, courts owe prison officials considerable deference.”). C. Plaintiffs’ Misinterpretation of the Law on Conditions of Confinement Claims
A corrective is necessary about Plaintiffs’ misinterpretation of the law in the Tenth Circuit concerning conditions of confinement claims.
Plaintiffs’ Complaint [ECF 7] attempts two claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, both alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The two claims are nearly identical, but Claim 1 is brought under the Fourteenth Amendment for Plaintiffs held as pretrial detainees, and Claim 2 is brought under the Eighth Amendment for Plaintiffs who have been convicted of crimes and are serving sentences. The same standard applies to both these claims. See Craig v. Eberly, 164 F.3d 490, 495 (10th Cir. 1998); Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, Kan., 318 F.3d 1183, 1188 (10th Cir. 2003).
Plaintiffs argue different standards apply to pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners and argue Craig was abrogated by Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466
16

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 43
(2015). See [ECF 1, at 32 n.62]. To support this argument, Plaintiffs cite Abila v. Funk, 220 F. Supp. 3d 1121, 1181 (D.N.M. 2016) (Browning, J.), and cases from various other Circuits, but not the Tenth Circuit. When Judge Browning decided Abila, he did not have the benefit of Tenth Circuit opinions on point. The Tenth Circuit has since observed this argument exists but (repeatedly) declined to address it, as recently as March 26, 2020. See, e.g., Khan v. Barela, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 9438 (10th Cir. Mar. 26, 2020) (“In this circuit, there is an open question whether, in light of Kingsley’s pronouncement regarding excessive-force claims, the subjective component of the Farmer test applies to a pretrial detainee’s claims regarding conditions of confinement and inadequate medical care.”); Burke v. Regalado, 935 F.3d 960, 991 n.9 (10th Cir. 2019) (recognizing argument but declining to resolve it); Perry v. Durborow, 892 F.3d 1116, 1122 n.1 (10th Cir. 2018).4 Because the Tenth Circuit has not overruled Craig, it remains controlling law for this Court, Plaintiffs are incorrect, and the same deliberate indifference standard applies to claims for both pretrial detainees and convicted inmates.
The applicable standard, therefore, requires all Plaintiffs to satisfy both an objective and a subjective component. Craig, 164 F.3d at 495. First, the objective component requires the alleged deprivation be “sufficiently serious.” Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991). “[O]nly those deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities ... are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth
4 See also Ueding v. Border, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36835 (D. Colo. Mar. 7, 2019) (in case involving pretrial detainee under the Fourteenth Amendment applying Kingsley to excessive force claim and Craig to conditions of confinement claim); Hill v. Reardon, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 234762 (D. Colo. Nov. 16, 2018) (same).
17

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 43
Amendment violation.” Id. at 298. Both the severity and the duration of the allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement are taken into consideration as are the totality of the overall conditions of confinement. Id. at 304-05; Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346 (1981).
Second, the subjective component of the inquiry requires the official to have a sufficiently culpable state of mind. “In the context of prison-conditions claims, the required state of mind is one of deliberate indifference to inmate health and safety.” Craig, 164 F.3d at 495. “In other words, the jailer is liable only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id. “The test requires both knowledge and disregard of possible risks, a mens rea on a par with criminal recklessness. If an official is aware of the potential for harm but takes reasonable efforts to avoid or alleviate that harm, he bears no liability under this standard.” Despain v. Uphoff, 264 F.3d 965, 975 (10th Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted). D. Both the Sheriff and This Court Lack Authority to Modify Sentences and Bonds
An explanation is necessary concerning the legal restraints on the Sheriff’s authority to modify sentences and bonds, and this Court’s inability to accept Plaintiffs’ invitation to weaponize the United States Constitution and require the Sheriff to do so.
Plaintiffs ask this Court to order the Sheriff to ensure social distancing the equivalent of CDC guidelines, or alternatively order the release from the WCJ of sufficient inmates to electronic home monitoring to allow for physical distancing of the equivalent
18

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 43
of CDC guidelines within the WCJ. [ECF 1, at 6-7]. This Court cannot order either of these remedies through a temporary restraining order or through other injunctive relief.
First, due to the physical and architectural realities of the WCJ, the only means to guarantee social distancing by at least six feet at all times would be to authorize the Sheriff and his deputies to use all necessary force to ensure all inmates are socially distancing at all times or to order prisoners released. Neither is a viable option for a temporary restraining order or other injunctive relief.5
Second, this Court cannot order Plaintiffs or any other inmates released from the WCJ. First, as discussed above, the PLRA imposes multiple requirements before the federal judiciary may issue a prisoner release order. It is not possible for this Court to comply with those requirements in issuing the requested TRO or any related initial-stage injunctive relief because, among other reasons, the Court must first convene a three judge panel, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(B)-(E), must first enter a less intrusive order, and must first give the Sheriff and WCJ a reasonable time to comply. Id., § 3626(a)(3)(a)(i) and (ii). This cannot be achieved in the expedited timeframe which Plaintiffs contemplate for a TRO or related initial-stage injunctive relief. Any prisoner release order therefore would be reversible error in direct violation of the PLRA.
Third, the Court also cannot use injunctive relief in this action to direct Colorado state judges to take any action. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (expressly disallowing injunctive
5 For instance, would Plaintiffs have all WCSO deputies refrain from all hands-on methods to subdue noncompliant or disruptive inmates or detainees and use only Tasers or pepperball rounds? The Sheriff certainly would not endorse such a course of action and, presumably, neither would this Court.
19

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 43
relief against a judicial officer “for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity ... unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.”); Knox v. Bland, 632 F.3d 1290, 1292 (10th Cir. 2011). By fiat of Congress, therefore, in a § 1983 action this Court lacks authority to direct a state court judge to modify an inmate’s or a detainee’s bond, reconsider a sentence, or otherwise direct a state court judge to order the release of a particular inmate.
Fourth, Plaintiffs have not brought this action seeking relief through habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which might allow this Court to consider whether individual Plaintiffs’ bonds or sentences were unconstitutional.6
And even if this Court had the jurisdiction and authority to modify Plaintiffs’ bonds through this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Younger abstention dictates the Court not intervene into an ongoing criminal prosecution. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); Chapman v. Oklahoma, 472 F.3d 747, 749 (10th Cir. 2006) (discussing factors to consider regarding Younger abstention). This is especially true where crime victim rights would be implicated and potentially violated. See Colo. Const. Art. II, § 16a (“Any person who is a victim of a criminal act, or such person’s designee, legal guardian, or surviving immediate family members if such person is deceased, shall have the right to be heard when relevant, informed, and present at all critical stages of the criminal justice process. All terminology, including the term ‘critical stages’, shall be defined by the general assembly.”); C.R.S. §§ 24-4.1-302(1)(f) & (h) (victim rights attach to charges of assault in
6 Even if Plaintiffs had petitioned for writs of habeas corpus, Plaintiffs likely could not meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).
20

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 43
the first and third degree, charges currently pending against Plaintiff Barnum and Carranza, respectively). The victims in these cases have both a constitutional and a statutory right to be informed of all “critical stages,”7 id. § 302.5(1)(b), and also have the right to be informed when the defendant is released from the county jail, id. § 302.5(1)(d), and the right to be heard at a bond hearing, id. § 302.5(1)(d)(I), a sentencing or resentencing hearing, id. § 302.5(1)(d)(IV), or a sentence modification hearing. Id. § 302.5(1)(d)(V). Colorado law requires Colorado state judges to inquire whether the victim is present and wishes to address the court at any of these hearings before the Court rules. Id. § 303. While these state statutes are not binding on this Court, Younger abstention dictates this Court should be mindful of these and other comity and federalism concerns before directly intervening in state criminal cases.
The Sheriff also lacks unilateral authority to release inmates from the WCJ either under his own authority or pursuant to any order from this Court. While the Sheriff is the custodian of the WCJ, C.R.S. § 30-10-511, all WCJ inmates are there because of lawful state court orders. See, e.g., C.R.S. §§ 18-1.3-202 (Colorado state court may sentence a convicted felon, such as Plaintiff Hunter, to up to ninety days jail as a condition of probation); 16-4-102 (Colorado state court must set bond before trial, which a state judge did for Plaintiffs Carranza, Martinez, Barnum, Lewis, and Ward). Convicted inmates may request sentence reconsideration, see Colo. R. Crim. P. 35(b), and pretrial detainees may
7 As relevant here, “critical stages” include: change in bond, sentencing or resentencing, modification to a sentence by Colo. R. Crim. P. 35(a) or 35(b) motion, or “the parole, release, or discharge from imprisonment of a person convicted of a crime.” See Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 24-4.1-302(2)(c), (h), (j), and (n).
21

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 43
request bond reduction. See C.R.S. § 16-4-109.8 Absent state court orders granting this relief, the Sheriff must abide by current court orders and keep inmates in custody at the WCJ. See C.R.S. § 17-26-103 (“keepers of the several county jails ... shall receive and safely keep every person duly committed ... to such jail” and “shall not without lawful authority let out of such jail, on bail or otherwise, any such person”). And the Sheriff cannot release convicted persons before they lawfully serve their sentences. See C.R.S. § 1726-109 (time computation sheriffs are required to apply in calculating release dates and awarding good time to convicts serving sentences in county jails).
In light of these limitations, the Sheriff took proactive steps that are within his legal authority to reduce the WCJ population. The Sheriff directed his deputies, and made several requests of local law enforcement, not to arrest suspects whenever possible but instead to issue summonses for court dates well into the future. This alone has significantly reduced the number of incoming inmates, resulting in a 35% decrease in jail population since March 1, 2020. But Colorado law still requires law enforcement officers to arrest a suspect when the officers have probable cause for specified crimes. See, e.g., C.R.S. 18-6-803.6(1) (peace officer must arrest after determining there is probable cause for offense involving domestic violence). The Sheriff must, therefore, continue to operate
8 Plaintiffs Carranza, Barnum, and Lewis have petitioned for bond modifications to allow reduced security amounts or personal recognizance bonds, pursuant to C.R.S. § 16-4-109. Colorado state judges considered and denied Mr. Carranza’s request on March 18, 2020, Mr. Barnum’s request on March 25, 2020, and Mr. Ward’s request on March 24, 2020. A Colorado state judge reduced the amount of security required on Mr. Lewis’s bond. Plaintiff Hunter has petitioned a Colorado state judge for sentence reduction, but no ruling issued, to the Sheriff’s knowledge. Plaintiffs Ward and Propes are no longer in WCJ custody due to the natural expiration of their confinement under statute and caselaw and, as discussed herein, their claims are moot.
22

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 43
within physical structure of the jail and legal structure of Colorado law, receiving new arrivals—after arrest or sentencing—and detaining them until lawfully allowed to release them pursuant to the requirements of Colorado law and any applicable order of a state court judge. This Court’s evaluation of Plaintiffs’ demand for injunctive relief must be evaluated within these legal constraints on the Sheriff under Colorado law. E. Plaintiffs Must Establish a Custom, Policy, or Practice of the Sheriff Violated
their Constitutional Rights for Any Cognizable Claim to Be Successful Plaintiffs sued the Sheriff in his official capacity, not individually. “A ‘suit against
[the Sheriff] in his official capacity as sheriff is the equivalent of a suit against [the] County.’” Layton v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 512 F. App'x 861, 867 n.4 (10th Cir. 2013) (alteration in original) (quoting Lopez v. LeMaster, 172 F.3d 756, 762 (10th Cir. 1999)). To establish liability for Weld County, Plaintiffs must show “deliberate action attributable to the municipality itself is the ‘moving force’ behind the plaintiff’s deprivation of federal rights.” Bd. of Cnty. Com'rs of Bryan Cnty., Okla. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997) (“Bryan Cnty.”); Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). However, Plaintiffs neither pled such a claim in their operative Complaint, ECF 7, nor made any argument in ECF 1 as to why they are likely to succeed on the merits of such a claim. Veritably, it is because they cannot.9
A local government may not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents. Waller v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 932 F.3d 1277 (10th
9 What’s more, even if Plaintiffs were somehow to amend their Complaint in the future to add a Monell municipal liability claim or restructure their allegations to attempt to allege a municipal liability claim, they won’t be entitled to the presumption of fact as to any allegation which contradicts the evidence encompassed by the Sheriff’s Declaration.
23

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 43
Cir. 2019) (affirming Rule 12 dismissal); Mocek v. City of Alb., 813 F.3d 912, 934 (10th Cir. 2015). Municipal liability under § 1983 mandates a constitutional violation “attributable to the municipality itself” and requires a plaintiff to demonstrate (1) the existence of a municipal custom or policy and (2) a direct and causal link between the custom or policy and the violation alleged. Jenkins v. Wood, 81 F.3d 988, 993 (10th Cir. 1996). Indeed, to adequately allege municipal liability, a plaintiff must state sufficient nonconclusory facts on: “(1) official policy or custom, (2) causation, and (3) state of mind.” Schneider v. City of Grand Junction Police Dep’t, 717 F.3d 760, 769 (10th Cir. 2013).
Custom/Policy/Practice: an “official policy or custom” must take one of five forms: (1) a formal regulation or policy statement; (2) an informal custom amounting to a widespread practice that, although not authorized by written law or express municipal policy, is so permanent and well settled as to constitute a custom or usage with the force of law; (3) the decisions of employees with final policymaking authority; (4) the ratification by such final policymakers of the decisions—and the basis for them—of subordinates to whom authority was delegated subject to these policymakers’ review and approval; or (5) the failure to adequately train or supervise employees, so long as that failure results from deliberate indifference to the injuries that may be caused. Waller, 932 F.3d at 1283; Bryson v. City of Okla. City, 627 F.3d 784, 788 (10th Cir. 2010). Regardless of the plaintiffs’ specific municipal liability theory, the plaintiffs bear the burden to demonstrate the essential policy or custom. See Bryan Cnty., 520 U.S. at 403 (“In Monell and subsequent cases, we have required a plaintiff seeking to impose liability on a municipality . . . to identify a municipal ‘policy’ or ‘custom’ that caused the plaintiff's injury.”) (emphasis added)). The factual basis for an alleged policy or custom must consist of much more than what allegedly happened to the plaintiffs. E.g., Griego v. City of Alb.,
24

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 43
100 F. Supp. 3d 1192, 1215 (D.N.M. 2015) (“[A]t the pleading stage, the existence of a Monell policy is a ‘conclusion’ to be built up to, rather than a ‘fact’ to be baldly asserted.”).
A custom is a “persistent and widespread” practice which “constitutes the standard operating procedure of the local governmental entity.” Mitchell v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 112 F. App’x 662, 672 (10th Cir. 2004). It may also be a series of decisions by a subordinate official of which the supervisor must have been aware. City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 130 (1988). Liability attaches in such a case because “the supervisor could realistically be deemed to have adopted a policy that happened to have been formulated or initiated by a lower-ranking official.” Id.
“Consistent with the plain meaning of ‘custom,’ proof of an isolated incident does not show a custom.” King v. Glanz, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84927, at *4-5 (N.D. Okla. June 23, 2014); see Lankford v. City of Hobart, 73 F.3d 283, 286 (10th Cir. 1996); Gates v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 449, 996 F.2d 1035, 1041 (10th Cir. 1993). Evidence of how a municipality’s actors acted in just one case is insufficient to establish a persistent and widespread practice that is permanent and well settled (the high threshold necessary to succeed on a municipal liability claim). Henderson v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7140, *30 (D. Colo. Jan. 21, 2014); City of Okla. City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 823-24 (1985) (“Proof of a single incident of unconstitutional activity is not sufficient to impose liability under Monell, unless proof of the incident includes proof that it was caused by existing, unconstitutional municipal policy.”).
Causation: the entity, via “deliberate” conduct, must have been the “moving force” behind the alleged injury, requiring both an action “taken with the requisite degree of
25

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 43
culpability” and a “direct causal link” between the action and the alleged deprivation of rights. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1997); see Bryan Cnty., 520 U.S. at 404; Canton, 489 U.S. at 385. And even if a constitutional violation occurred as purportedly alleged, no municipal liability is based on pure respondeat superior. See Monell, 436 U.S. at 694. Local governments are liable only for their own illegal acts. Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 60 (2011). This causation requirement is satisfied if the plaintiffs show “the municipality was the ‘moving force’ behind the injury alleged.” Bryan Cty., 520 U.S. at 404. As the Supreme Court has made increasingly clear over the past 40 years, proof of a policy claim requires a tight causal connection between the alleged policy and the constitutional injury. In Monell, the Court held a plaintiff had to identify a causal nexus between his injury and the municipality’s alleged custom or policy. Monell, 436 U.S. at 693-94. And in City of Canton, the Court held a viable municipal liability claim required the identified deficiency in a city’s training program must be “closely related to the ultimate injury.” Canton, 489 U.S. at 391.
State of Mind: In addition, Plaintiffs must also establish the requisite degree of culpability on the County’s part – namely, the alleged municipal practices were carried out with “deliberate indifference” to their known or obvious consequences. City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388 (1989); Bryan Cnty., 520 U.S. at 400. The prevailing stateof-mind standard for entity liability in the Tenth Circuit is deliberate indifference “regardless of the nature of the underlying constitutional violation.” Schneider, 717 F.3d at 771 n.5. Importantly, for a conditions of confinement case like the above-captioned action, deliberate indifference “is defined differently for Eighth Amendment and municipal
26

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 43
liability purposes.” Barney v. Pulsipher, 143 F.3d 1299, 1307 n.5 (10th Cir. 1998). The deliberate indifference standard for prison conditions is a subjective standard, requiring “actual knowledge of a risk by the official.” Id. Deliberate indifference for municipal liability, in stark contrast, is an objective standard and requires a risk to be “so obvious that the official [or the entity] should have known of it.” Id. That is, to even get to the merits of an Eighth Amendment claim, Plaintiffs must hurdle an extremely high threshold bar. F. Alleged Violation of the Centers for Disease Control Social Distancing or Other
Guidelines Is Not the Equivalent of a Violation of the United States Constitution The entire thrust of Plaintiffs’ Motion is an effort to establish the Sheriff and the
WCJ allegedly failed to adhere to the social distancing and other guidelines set by the CDC. [See generally ECF 1]. This Court must reject Plaintiffs’ effort to constitutionalize the CDC guidelines. The issue before this Court is not whether the Sheriff and the WCJ are adhering to the CDC guidelines—although as the Sheriff’s Declaration establishes, they are, to the best of their abilities based on the realities of the daily operations of a jail—but rather, whether the customs, policies and procedures of the WCJ implemented by the Sheriff to address COVID-19 violate the United States Constitution.
It has long been the law that a violation of agency policy, regulation, rule, training, or practice—from any agency—is not the equivalent of a violation of constitutional rights. See, e.g., Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 193-96 (1984); Tanberg v. Sholtis, 401 F.3d 1151, 1159-60 (10th Cir. 2005); Herring v. Keenan, 218 F.3d 1171, 1180 (10th Cir. 2000); Wilson v. Meeks, 52 F.3d 1547, 1554 (10th Cir. 1995); Giannetti v. City of Stillwater, 216 F. App’x 756, 766 (10th Cir. 2007). No reasoned difference exists to distinguish the CDC’s COVID-19 social distancing and other guidelines from the above
27

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 43
precedent. This Court must focus not on whether the current operations of the WCJ are compliant with the CDC or other health and safety guidelines, but whether they violate the inmates’ constitutional rights—two altogether different inquiries. G. Plaintiffs Have Not Met and Cannot Meet the Legal Requirements Necessary for
their Requested Injunctive Relief in the Form of a TRO Here as a Matter of Law. Keeping all the above principles in mind, as the Court must, Plaintiffs have not
satisfied and cannot satisfy any of the four elements necessary to grant injunctive relief. Thus, this Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion and deny the sought-after injunctive relief in the form of a TRO and of an expedited hearing.
1. Plaintiffs have no likelihood of success on the merits whatsoever.10 Plaintiffs’ two claims against the Sheriff are brought in his official capacity. These claims are therefore asserted against Weld County. See Layton, 512 F. App'x at 867 n.4. While ECF 1 discusses the merits of Plaintiffs’ claimed constitutional deprivation, ECF 1 omits any discussion or argument as to municipal liability. This is fatal, as Plaintiffs did not even attempt to show they are likely to succeed on a municipal liability claim. The Court need not even consider this flaw, however, because Plaintiffs cannot prove an underlying deprivation of constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Ogden City, 589 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2009) (municipal “liability will not attach ‘where there was no underlying constitutional violation by any of [the municipality’s] officers.’”) (quoting Graves
10 Plaintiff Ward and Plaintiff Propes have been released from the WCJ due to the natural expiration of their confinement under statute and caselaw. Longstanding Tenth Circuit precedent which this Court must follow dictates their claims for injunctive relief (the only type of relief sought in ECF 1) are moot without possibility of resurrection. E.g., Green v. Branson, 108 F.3d 1296, 1300 (10th Cir. 1997).
28

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 43
v. Thomas, 450 F.3d 1215, 1218 (10th Cir. 2006) (alteration in original)). Applying the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard makes this clear, for two reasons.
First, the Sheriff recognizes the seriousness of the COVID-19 pandemic and the potential of the virus to cause a serious health condition if a person falls ill. To the Sheriff’s knowledge, none of the Plaintiffs have been sick with COVID-19 or are sick with COVID19. For simplicity and efficiency, however, the Sheriff is not contesting the objective factor of the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard purely for purposes of this Response, but the Sheriff reserves the right to do so later in the proceedings.
Second, the Sheriff was not deliberately indifferent. The WCSO and its leader have taken the COVID-19 crisis quite seriously and implemented many new processes and procedures to protect jail staff and inmates, as more fully described in the Sheriff’s Declaration. [See Exh. A and its attachments]. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ hyperbolic assertions, the Sheriff is and has been aware of the dangers posed by COVID-19, and it is precisely because the Sheriff has been aware of those dangers the WCSO acted quickly and decisively to implement these policies and procedures beginning as far back as February 2020. Because the Sheriff “[took] reasonable efforts to avoid or alleviate that harm, [the Sheriff] bears no liability under this standard.” Despain, 264 F.3d at 975. Despain requires reasonable efforts, and the Court must evaluate the actions of the Sheriff and the WCSO in the context of what reasonably can be achieved within a jail. It is undisputed a jail cannot be expected to replicate the conditions of a hospital.11
11 Although even hospitals have been forced to adapt to provide care to COVID19 patients. See, e.g., Madeline Holcombe, Holly Yan and Eric Levenson, New York’s Central Park and harbor are now home to makeshift hospitals, CNN, March 30, 2020,
29

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 43
The following represents but a fraction of the many new policies and procedures which the Sheriff and the WCSO put in place to protect staff and inmates from COVID-19 in the WCJ, as more fully detailed in Exh. A and its attachments which must be considered as a whole (citations are noted parenthetically by page and paragraph):
• The WCSO implemented multiple policies to allow for social distancing, within the physical limits allowed by WCJ population and its physical plant: March 13, 2020 limits on outside visitors (pp. 7-8, ¶¶ 22-23); multiple iterations of social distancing guidelines for WCSO staff (p. 8, ¶ 25; p. 12, ¶ 44; pp. 13-14, ¶ 49); reduced inmate reclassification (p. 19, ¶ 79); and March 31, 2020, transmission of a then-current list of all inmates for sentence review to the Chief Judge for the Nineteenth Judicial District of Colorado (p. 16, ¶ 65).
• The WCJ employs a professional janitorial staff which has been cleaning and sanitizing, and continues to clean and sanitize, the WCJ (p. 25, ¶ 109); all library books are now cleaned and sanitized after each use (p. 15, ¶ 56); common-use fixtures, such as water fountains, are sanitized multiple times per day (p. 22, ¶ 93); and the WCJ both directed inmates to clean and sanitize toilets before and after each use and provided supplies for that purpose (p. 22, ¶ 94).
• The WCJ has provided to inmates free of charge, continues to provide to inmates free of charge, and will continue to provide to inmates free of charge, sanitation supplies like soap and cleaner (p. 21, ¶ 91); and on February 27, 2020, perceiving
available at: https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/30/us/new-york-coronavirus-cases-deaths/ index.html (last visited April 11, 2020).
30

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 31 of 43
the potential future risk which COVID-19 might pose to the jail, the WCJ began doubling its normal order of Clorox wipes and hand sanitizer (p. 3, ¶ 10). • The WCJ attempted to procure masks for inmates for weeks, but they proved difficult to obtain (p. 8, ¶ 24; p. 14, ¶ 50); and after nearly a month of trying to obtain masks, the WCJ received a shipment on April 8, 2020, and immediately distributed masks to all inmates, along with guidance on proper use of masks (p. 20, ¶ 83). • On March 11, 2020, the WCSO instructed Aramark, its food services vendor, to develop a plan in the event of a COVID-19 outbreak at the jail, and the WCSO received that plan from Aramark on March 13, 2020 and verbally requested on March 30, 2020 that Aramark plan to implement it if necessary (p. 6, ¶ 17; p. 7, ¶ 21; p. 16, ¶ 62); on April 6, 2020, the WCJ began requiring inmate trustees, who work in multiple functions in the jail including food preparation, to have their temperature taken before work and to wear masks while working (p. 20, ¶ 81). • On March 10, 2020, the WCSO requested its medical services vendor to prepare screening tools for COVID-19 for deputies to ask all new arrivals during booking (pp. 4-5, ¶ 14); on March 11-12, 2020, WCSO implemented a screening and isolation protocol for COVID-19 (pp. 5-6, ¶ 15); on March 16, 2020, well before there were any positive COVID-19 tests in the WCJ, the WCSO set aside areas of the WCJ for “screening pods” or multi-day observation of new arrivals (p. 9, ¶ 30); after the WCJ identified its first suspected COVID-19 case in an inmate on March 19, 2020, all other occupants of the inmate’s unit were screened (pp. 11-12, ¶ 43); after the first positive COVID-19 test of an inmate on March 31, 2020, the WCJ
31

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 32 of 43
implemented multiple policies to quarantine the podmates of that inmate in the same pod (pp. 17-18, ¶ 68); and the WCSO placed the entire WCJ population on lockdown on April 1, 2020, to reduce any spread of COVID-19 (p. 18, ¶ 69). • Inmates continue to have the same access to media as they have always had (pp. 23-24, ¶ 103); on April 9, 2020, the WCSO posted reminders of COVID-19 related information (p. 20, ¶ 84); and on April 10, 2020, each inmate was given a flyer on CDC-recommendations for how to use masks (p. 21, ¶ 87). This summary includes only a portion of the steps the Sheriff and the WCSO have taken to protect the health and safety of inmates and staff at the WCJ. The Sheriff’s welldocumented actions to combat COVID-19 are significantly more credible than Plaintiffs’ own Declarations, which allege vague and unsupported concerns. The Sherriff asks the Court to review his entire Declaration and all attachments. After doing so, the Court must conclude the Sheriff was not deliberately indifferent under the Eighth Amendment standard. Plaintiffs have not, cannot, and will not prove any constitutional deprivation. More fundamentally, regarding the municipal liability standard which as a matter of law undisputedly applies here, Plaintiffs have made no showing the County is liable. ECF 1 does not specifically articulate which of the five established theories of municipal liability on which Plaintiffs rely, see Section V.E supra; it does not address how the Sheriff was deliberately indifferent under the municipal liability standard; and it does not address how any custom, practice, or policy of the Sheriff was the moving force behind Plaintiffs’ asserted constitutional violations. In other words, Plaintiffs blithely ignore municipal liability entirely, though the only claims Plaintiffs brought are municipal liability claims.
32

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 33 of 43
The Sheriff does not know which theory Plaintiffs would put forth for municipal liability and will not speculate about the relative merits of any potential theories here. But as the Sheriff’s Declaration, its attachments, and the above summary thereof show, the Sheriff and WCSO decisionmakers were not deliberately indifferent, categorically, to obvious risks to inmates. To the contrary, relevant decisionmakers acted early and often to ensure a reasonably safe environment within a jail setting. Given the multiple policies and actions taken to address COVID-19 in the WCJ, no potential municipal liability theory could succeed as the moving force behind a constitutional deprivation for Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs have not made any showing of why they are likely to succeed on their municipal liability claims, let alone the “strong showing” required for this Court to grant disfavored injunctive relief. Plaintiffs are quite unlikely to prevail on the merits at all, much less marshal the required showing of a “substantial” likelihood of success on the merits.
2. For purposes of this Response, the Sheriff does not contest the prospect of irreparable injury which might result from COVID-19 as a general matter.
The Sheriff acknowledges falling ill with COVID-19 poses real and serious health risks to many people worldwide, including Plaintiffs. To the Sheriff’s knowledge, however, none of the Plaintiffs is sick with COVID-19. For simplicity and efficiency, however, the Sheriff is not contesting this factor for the purposes of this Response, but reserves the right to do so later in the proceedings.
3. The threatened injury does not outweigh potential harm to WCJ and WCSO. Plaintiffs argue there is no identifiable harm to the WCJ or WCSO, except minor administrative costs. [ECF 1, at 50]. This is entirely incorrect for several reasons. First, the WCSO assuredly has a strong and judicially recognized interest in maintaining control
33

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 34 of 43
over the WCJ without Court supervision. E.g., Overton, 539 U.S. at 132; Bell, 441 U.S. at 547-48. Mandatory injunctive relief would necessitate ongoing Court supervision to assure the WCSO is abiding by any order. SCFC ILC, 936 F.2d at 1099. The WCSO would thus lose the ability to react quickly to changes in circumstances in the WCJ and would have to go to the Court for approval continuously, as the WCJ adapts to the evolving COVID-19 crisis and public health recommendations. Second, the multiple forms of injunctive relief Plaintiffs request, see [ECF 1, at 6-7], would require the WCSO to take many separate actions, the cost and implementation of which are ambiguous. Plaintiffs have not addressed how the Court could, for instance, order a third-party vendor of professional cleaners with no correctional experience to work in a secure facility such as a jail. How quickly would the cleaners have to be hired? Would there be adequate time to vet them for security risks? Would the WCSO be liable if the cleaners were negligent in cleaning and sanitizing? Would Weld County taxpayers be required to pay for the cleaners? And what about the already-employed professional cleaning staff, would they have to be kept on payroll while displaced by this third-party vendor yet have the County continue paying the payroll costs of wages and benefits due County employees?
Plaintiffs also fail to address whether they are asking the Court to order the WCSO to provide each inmate only one mask or a separate mask for each day. As the Court is no doubt aware, there is a nationwide shortage of personal protective equipment (“PPE”), including masks.12 While the WCSO has worked for weeks to locate PPE—with quite a
12 See Olga Khazan, Why We’re Running out of Masks, The Atlantic, April 10, 2020, available at https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/why-wererunning-out-of-masks-in-the-coronavirus-crisis/609757/ (last visited April 11, 2020).
34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 35 of 43
few staff members even using homemade masks to conserve WCJ mask supply for inmates, see [Exh. A, p. 24 ¶ 104], the WCSO faces the same hurdles as the rest of the United States in locating and obtaining PPE supplies. Similarly, Plaintiffs fail to address how the WCJ could implement policies enforcing social distancing at all times yet guard against the additional liability the WCSO presumably and otherwise would be alleged to bear for using varying levels of force in carrying out those Court-ordered policies.
As even these few considerations show, Plaintiffs fail to show their interests outweigh the alarming potential of damage to the WCSO, for the very simple reason it did not occur to Plaintiffs to realistically consider the potential damage to the WCSO. And Plaintiffs certainly have not made the “strong showing” required for the Court to grant this disfavored injunctive relief. The Court must conclude Plaintiffs have not met their burden on this “balance of harms” factor.
4. Plaintiffs’ requested injunctive relief would be adverse to the public interest because it unreasonably threatens public safety.
The PLRA requires this Court to “give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety” in considering injunctive relief that would release prisoners. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); see also Section V.A supra. Plaintiffs disregarded this requirement and do not discuss public safety or acknowledge public safety risks at any point. Given the architectural and staffing realities of the WCJ, it is neither possible nor advisable for the WCSO to patrol the WCJ to ensure all inmates are at least six feet from all other people at all times. Plaintiffs ask, in the alternative, this Court order prisoners released from the WCJ. [ECF 1, at 7]. Beyond the multiple legal impediments to such an order, see Sections V.A & V.D supra, releasing inmates would create an unjustifiable public safety risk. To be
35

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 36 of 43
blunt, there are very good reasons Colorado state judges determined WCJ inmates should be confined there and not remain at liberty in the community. A review of the public safety risks which Plaintiffs themselves pose merely underscores this overriding concern:
• Plaintiff Carranza is currently held in the WCJ on a $1,000 cash or surety bond, facing a charge of assault in the third degree, pursuant to C.R.S. § 18-3-204. Mr. Carranza has failed to appear or failed to comply with court orders six times. His prior criminal history includes arrests for burglary, possession of a controlled substance, forgery, and a sentence to the Colorado Department of Corrections and later arrest for a parole violation, among other arrests. Given his poor record of compliance with court orders and his prior criminal history, he poses a significant community safety risk. This is perhaps why Colorado state judges have already denied two motions for bond modification from Mr. Carranza, filed March 16 and 23, 2020. See Exhibit A-40 for further information on Mr. Carranza.
• Plaintiff Martinez is currently held on three separate bonds: a $70,000 cash or surety bond for a charge of escape, a $50,000 cash or surety bond for a controlled substance charge, and a $10,000 cash or surety bond for a charge of vehicular eluding. Mr. Martinez has failed to appear or failed to comply with court orders 10 times. His prior criminal history includes arrests for vehicular eluding and possession of a controlled substance, a bond violation, and a sentence to the Colorado Department of Corrections and later arrest for a parole violation, among other arrests. Given Mr. Martinez’s record of noncompliance with court orders, his current charge of escape, and his prior criminal history, Mr. Martinez presents an
36

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 37 of 43
unjustifiable community safety risk. This likely explains why Colorado state judges have required and aggregate $130,000 in cash or surety bonds. See Exhibit A-41 for further information on Mr. Martinez. • Plaintiff Barnum is currently held in the WCJ on a $25,000 cash or surety bond, facing a charges of assault in the first degree, pursuant to C.R.S. § 18-3-202, alleging he intentionally caused serious bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon, a statutory crime of violence under Colorado law requiring a sentence to the Colorado Department of Corrections of between 10 and 32 years. See id. § 181.3-406. Mr. Barnum has failed to appear or failed to comply with court orders thirteen times. His prior criminal history includes six prior arrests for driving under the influence and a sentence to the Colorado Department of Corrections for theft, among other arrests. The serious nature of his current charge and its mandatory prison sentence, Mr. Barnum’s poor record of compliance with court orders, and the significant public safety risk posed by multiple DUI offenders make him a significant and unjustifiable public safety risk. He sought a bond modification with the Colorado state court and has a bond hearing scheduled for April 15, 2020. See Exhibit A-42 for further information on Mr. Barnum. • Plaintiff Lewis is currently held in the WCJ on a $500 cash only bond, facing a felony charge of driving under the influence with three or more prior convictions, pursuant to C.R.S. § 42-4-1301, obstructing a peace officer, and possession of a controlled substance, among other charges. He is also held on a $1,000 cash only bond, facing an allegation that he failed to comply with probation. Mr. Lewis has
37

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 38 of 43
failed to appear or failed to comply with court orders five times. His prior criminal history includes four prior arrests for driving under the influence, multiple prior controlled substance related arrests, and an arrest for vehicular eluding, among other arrests. Despite Mr. Lewis’s poor record of compliance with court orders and the significant public safety risk of multiple DUI offenders, especially those who elude peace officers, a Colorado state court judge reduced Mr. Lewis’s original $60,000 cash bond to the current $1,000 cash bond. See Exhibit A-43 for further information on Mr. Lewis. • Plaintiff Ward has been released from the WCJ. See Green, 108 F.3d at 1296. • Plaintiff Propes has been released from the WCJ. See Green, 108 F.3d at 1296. • Plaintiff Hunter is currently serving a jail sentence for possession of a weapon by a previous offender, a charge necessarily requiring a prior felony conviction. See C.R.S. § 18-12-108. His scheduled release date is April 26, 2020. He has a sentence reconsideration hearing scheduled for Tuesday, April 14, 2020. See Exhibit A-46 for further information on Mr. Hunter. As this information shows, releasing Plaintiffs—at least those who are even still detained—into the Weld County community before a Colorado state court judge has determined they should be released would pose an unjustifiable community safety risk. The community should not be forced to bear the risk of violent offenders, multiple DUI offenders, and offenders who consistently and repeatedly fail to comply with court orders. Plaintiffs’ assertion they are at risk of sickness and death in the WCJ does not outweigh the proven threat to community safety of all Plaintiffs who remain housed within the WCJ.
38

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 39 of 43
Moreover, this Court should be mindful of comity and federalism, see Section V.D supra, and should be loath to override public safety decisions made by Colorado state court judges, who have substantially more information available to them about individual inmates in the WCJ than does this Court, as this Court is well aware from its own experience making similar release decisions in the federal system.
Finally, the COVID-19 crisis has impacted law enforcement as it has every other sector of society. The additional strain upon law enforcement’s already heavy burden during this crisis of releasing dangerous offenders in the community is not in the public interest. In summary, the public safety risk of Plaintiffs’ sought-after relief strongly outweighs Plaintiffs’ interest in the relief, meaning Plaintiffs won’t prevail on this factor.
5. If the Court orders injunctive relief, significant security should be required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c) allows the Court to order a security as a condition of any injunctive relief “to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” The Sheriff asserts any injunctive relief, in the form of a TRO or otherwise, is manifestly inappropriate. But if the Court does order relief, the WCSO may have significant costs to bear—costs which ultimately would be borne by Weld County taxpayers. Thus, to compensate those taxpayers for potentially improvident relief, the Court should order posting of a security interest of at least $500,000.13
13 As stated in the Sheriff’s Declaration, the WCJ’s year-to-date net operating cost through February 29, 2020 is $77,470 daily, which is the best available figure the Sheriff could give the Court as of April 13, 2020, given data entry limitations. [ECF 1, at 25 ¶ 113]. Multiplying this figure by the 14 days for which a TRO would be active comes out to a total of $1,084,580. Although imposition of a security posting requirement of even less than half of such a figure in this case still may seem harsh, it would be equally harsh to saddle Weld County taxpayers with the costs of improvidently granted injunctive relief.
39

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 40 of 43
This security would account for a wide range of potential (or likely) costs of the requested injunctive relief, such as: hiring an outside cleaning company to clean the jail each day; keeping the already-existing County janitorial staff on payroll and benefits while this third-party vendor does their job; moving more deputies into the jail to enforce inmate social distancing, thereby reducing law enforcement presence in the community; paying the exorbitant cost for already-existent PPE on primary or secondary markets, if the PPE is to be replaced daily; locating and paying for alternate locations to house inmates (if they even exist at this point), such as other jails, if the court orders a reduction in inmate numbers in the WCJ, as the WCSO cannot lawfully release inmates from custody; defending potential lawsuits based on excessive force, prison conditions, or other claims, and on sanctions for violating victim rights, caused by compliance with the Court’s Order.
Moreover, as discussed above, several Plaintiffs have cash or surety bonds which Colorado state judicial officers have been unwilling to remove, and the Colorado Supreme Court recently denied a strikingly similar request to order the mass and immediate release of persons in county jails due to the pandemic.14 Granting injunctive relief without security would be an end run around those bonds, as it could require Plaintiffs’ release without payment of security, contravening the considered judgment of Colorado state court judges. For all these reasons, if the Court grants injunctive relief despite the many weighty arguments, authorities, exhibits, and explanation the Sheriff has provided the Court here, the Court should require Plaintiffs to post a security interest of at least $500,000.
14 See dockets in Colo. Sup. Ct. Nos. 2020SA116 (and Apr. 3, 2020 Order), 2020SA117 (and Apr. 3, 2020 Order), of which the Court can take judicial notice.
40

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 41 of 43
6. Other legal considerations weigh against granting injunctive relief. First, a temporary restraining order is appropriate only if “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). Plaintiffs offered the Court neither affidavits signed by all Plaintiffs directly nor a verified complaint signed by all Plaintiffs directly. And besides, the Court must assess their claimed entitlement to a TRO and emergency hearing in light of the state of the facts as of today April 13, 2020, not as of April 7, 2020. Second, Plaintiffs’ sought-after injunctive relief would place the Sheriff between a proverbial Scylla and Charybdis. The Sheriff would be forced to choose between complying with the narrowness of Colorado state law on detaining inmates pursuant to Colorado state court orders, see Section V.D supra, and complying with the breadth of this Court’s orders potentially requiring the release of those inmates. Where an entity defendant like the Sheriff would be “whipsaw[ed]” into attempting to comply with two conflicting directives issued by two different courts, as here, temporary injunctive relief is especially inappropriate. Bayaud Enters. v. United States Dep’t of Veteran’s Affairs, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97303, at *15-16 (D. Colo. June 10, 2019) (Krieger, S.J.). Third, the PLRA’s multiple requirements for injunctive relief as to prisoners such as Plaintiffs and the rest of their WCJ co-inmates, see Section V.A supra, significantly weigh against granting Plaintiffs a TRO or other injunctive relief. Granting the relief in contravention of the PLRA’s plain requirements likely would be reversible error, and the Court should decline Plaintiffs’ invitation to meander into the buzzsaw of reversible error.
41

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 42 of 43
VI. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs would have this Court, and the public, believe the Sheriff is plucking his Stradivarius gleefully while the Weld County Jail and its inmates succumb to COVID-19.15 However, as the above authorities, analysis, exhibits, and explanation demonstrate forcefully, such a characterization is far from the actual truth. Rather, the evidence presented in and along with this Response demonstrates the Sheriff and the Weld County Sheriff’s Office have diligently, comprehensively, and appropriately addressed COVID-19 at the Weld County Jail. Every day, Weld County Jail personnel balance the needs of safety and security with the health needs of all the inmates in the Jail and themselves. In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant Sheriff Steven Reams, as the duly elected Sheriff for the County of Weld, State of Colorado, respectfully requests this Court enter an Order: denying Plaintiffs’ application for a temporary restraining order and expedited hearing in this matter; and granting all other relief deemed just and proper. Respectfully submitted this 13th day of April, 2020.
s/ Matthew J. Hegarty Matthew J. Hegarty, Esq. Andrew D. Ringel, Esq. John F. Peters, Esq. of HALL & EVANS, LLC 1001 17th Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 T: (303) 628-3300 F: (303) 628-3368 hegartym@hallevans.com ringela@hallevans.com petersj@hallevans.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
15 See Mary Beard, SPQR, A History of Ancient Rome 398 (1st paperback ed. 2016) (relaying historical account of the Emperor Nero fiddling whilst Rome burned).
42

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 43 of 43

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF)

I hereby certify that on this 13th day of April, 2020, on or before 9:00 AM MDT, a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND EXPEDITED HEARING [ECF 1] was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court which will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses:

Darold W. Killmer David A. Lane Andrew Joseph McNulty Michael Paul Fairhurst KILLMER LANE & NEWMAN LLP dkillmer@kln-law.com dlane@kln-law.com amcnulty@kln-law.com mfairhurst@kln-law.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Thomas Carranza, Jesus Martinez, Michael Ward, Colby Propes, and Chad Hunter

David George Maxted MAXTED LAW LLC dave@maxtedlaw.com
Jamie Hughes Hubbard STIMSON STANCIL LABRANCHE HUBBARD LLC hubbard@sslhlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Thomas Carranza, Jesus Martinez, Michael Ward, Colby Propes, and Chad Hunter

Daniel David Williams Lauren Elizabeth Groth HUTCHINSON BLACK & COOK, LLC williams@hbcboulder.com groth@hbcboulder.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Richard Barnum and Thomas Lewis

Mark Silverstein Rebecca Teitelbaum Wallace Sara R. Neel AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNIONDENVER msilverstein@aclu-co.org rtwallace@aclu-co.org sneel@aclu-co.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs Richard Barnum and Thomas Lewis

s/ Marlene Wilson, Legal Assistant at HALL & EVANS, L.L.C.

43

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 28
EXHIBIT A
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00977-PAB THOMAS CARRANZA; JESUS MARTINEZ; RICHARD BARNUM; THOMAS LEWIS; MICHAEL WARD; COLBY PROPES; and CHAD HUNTER,
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
DECLARATION OF SHERIFF STEVEN REAMS
I, Sheriff Steven Reams, being of lawful age and duly sworn under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby declare as follows:
1. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this Declaration. 2. I currently serve as the duly elected Sheriff for the County of Weld, State of Colorado. I have served in this position for a total of five (5) years. 3. Before beginning my tenure as Weld County Sheriff on January 25, 2015, I was employed with the Weld County Sheriff’s Office (“WCSO”) for eighteen (18) prior years and served in many positions: master control operator, Detentions Division officer, patrol deputy after earning Peace Officer Standards Training (“POST”) certification, detective,
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 28
commander, Detentions Division deputy bureau chief, Patrol Division deputy bureau chief, Public Safety bureau chief, and Detentions Division bureau chief.
4. I earned a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice from Colorado Technical University in 2007, and I also completed the FBI National Academy in 2007.
SUBSTANTIAL STEPS WHICH WCSO TOOK TO COMBAT COVID-19 5. I am individually familiar with the protocols and processes which the WCSO as a whole generated, implemented, and refined in response to the global, national, and local public health threat posed by the novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”), because I was personally involved in generating, implementing, refining, and approving such protocols and processes in consultation with a team of WCSO staff and local public health officials. 6. Such protocols and processes also incorporated national guidelines from the federal Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”), and state directives from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (“CDPHE”), among others. I am not aware of any specific guidelines adopted by any federal or state public health authority specifically governing how COVID-19 should be addressed in a correctional facility setting. All decisions I have made and the WCSO has adopted at the Weld County Jail (“WCJ”) related to the COVID-19 pandemic have been made based on an assessment of the health and safety needs of the inmates and detainees (hereinafter collectively “inmates”), WCSO employees, and the public. All decisions I have made and the WCSO has adopted at the WCJ related to the COVID-19 pandemic have also been made based on the distinct operational needs of a jail; the physical plant, structure, and layout of WCJ; and the resources and supplies available to the WCSO. As this Declaration establishes, I and the WCSO continue to evaluate and respond to different events which have
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 28
occurred since COVID-19 became an issue for the WCSO generally and at the WCJ specifically and we will continue to do so.
7. Prior to February 27, 2020, the WCSO became aware of the growing number of COVID-19 infections which were occurring worldwide, although as yet there were fewer than 20 reported positive infection tests in the United States1 and Weld County had not yet experienced any reported cases of COVID-19.
8. Thereafter the WCSO took substantial steps to generating, implementing, and refining such protocols and processes in a manner intended to protect the health and safety of WCJ inmates, WCSO personnel, and the Weld County public.
9. On February 27, 2020, I directed the WCSO Detentions Division Captain and the Administrative Division Captain to review the WCSO’s policies on Inmate Screening and Evaluations and on Communicable Diseases, and to begin to update them as needed, in the event there was an outbreak of COVID-19 either in Weld County proper or the WCJ and for the WCSO to be positioned to respond in a manner most protective of the health and safety of WCJ inmates, WCSO personnel, and the Weld County public. These two captains confirmed to me they followed my directive.
10. Also on February 27, 2020, the WCSO began doubling its usual order of Clorox wipes, toilet paper, and hand sanitizer for use at the WCJ, because the WCSO perceived national trends which might lead to a shortage of such items and the WCSO wanted to do everything it could to ensure sufficient supply on hand.
1 See, e.g., https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-inus.html#2019coronavirus-summary (last visited April 13, 2020).
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 28
11. On March 4, 2020, the Weld County Department of Human Resources in consultation with Weld County Health Department (“WCHD”) sent a lengthy substantive email to all Weld County staff advising them, although neither the State of Colorado nor Weld County experienced any reported cases of COVID-19, certain additional safety precautions must be taken by all Weld County employees (inclusive of WCSO), including: frequent cleaning of hands by washing them or using an alcohol-based hand sanitizer when soap and water are not available; covering noses and mouths when coughing and sneezing; avoiding close contact with those exhibiting cold or flu-like symptoms; and staying home from their duties if they show symptoms of any sickness. [See Exh. A-1.]
12. On March 5, 2020, at my direction, WCSO Captains began planning contingencies for the potential effect of COVID-19 on the WCSO and its operations, including the operations of the WCJ.
13. On March 6, 2020, WCSO leadership collaborated with Jon Echols, President of WCSO medical services vendor Turn Key Health Clinics (“TKHC”), on the development of screening tools and protocols for the WCJ’s anticipated response for COVID-19. This was a preemptive response to what WCSO leadership believed would potentially be an urgent need in the coming weeks and to establish a collaborative reaction specific to the WCJ as to possible spread of COVID-19. I met separately with Mr. Echols to discuss and confirm the same information with him which WCSO leadership just discussed with him.
14. On March 10, 2020, the WCSO requested screening tools from TKHC for booking deputies to utilize to ask questions of persons being booked at the WCJ related to risk factors of COVID-19 prior to admission to the WCJ, to secure the booking side of the WCJ along with furnishment of a process for nursing staff intervention if the questions
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 28
being posed to persons being booked received positive responses. The requested tools and processes were provided to the WCSO by TKHC and started to be used by booking deputies in short order after receipt of those tools and processes. [See Exh. A-2.]
15. On March 11, 2020, WCSO personnel sent a lengthy email to the County Department of Buildings and Grounds outlining the procedures which the WCSO intended to implement at the WCJ beginning March 12, 2020, including but not limited to:
a. Enhanced arrest screening procedures, including questions related to symptomology which if a positive response was generated would lead to the performing of a more targeted assessment by medical staff to include isolation of the arrestee from the rest of the WCJ population if it was determined appropriate for the arrestee to be admitted to the WCJ;
b. Enhanced in-custody screening procedures by which any and all inmates who complained of symptoms appearing even potentially related to COVID-19 would be immediately screened by medical staff, and if medical staff deemed such inmates were experiencing symptoms potentially related to COVID19, such inmates would be immediately isolated per the “Respiratory Isolation Preparedness” protocol recommended by TKHC.
c. While isolated this way, inmates would be confined to “negative airflow” room for a minimum of 14 days or otherwise in accordance with CDC guidelines, ensuring no inmate would be held even in quarantine past mandatory release date;
d. If the number of inmates needing to be isolated due to COVID-19 exceeded the capacity of the negative airflow rooms, such inmates would all transition to a housing unit designated as an isolation unit in which no inmates
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 28
would be permitted except those whom medical staff deemed to be experiencing symptoms potentially related to COVID-19; and
e. The WCSO would cooperate fully with outside public entities, including medical staff contacting appropriate public health authorities for various purposes, to include completion of proper testing for COVID-19, having on hand all needed equipment, and collaboration with local public health authorities. [See Exh. A-3.] The isolation protocol actually took effect March 11, 2020, a day earlier than expected. All other foregoing steps were implemented as of March 12, 2020. 16. Also on March 11, 2020, the WCSO posted a sign at its back gate advising arrestees they would have to answer questions about recent travel outside of the United States, which of course would place them at higher risk of infection for COVID-19 and, in connection with this sign, directed control deputies to ask local law enforcement who arrest individuals who are then typically placed in the WCJ to implement mandatory arrestee questioning concerning travel outside of the United States in the prior 30 days to ensure a more targeted assessment and evaluation of such arrestees. [See Exh. A-4.] 17. Also on March 11, 2020, the WCSO instructed Aramark, its food services vendor, to develop a plan for a decrease in its staff, or potentially a decrease in the Inmate Trustee population who assisted with food services, to ensure food services continued and still met all dietary standards in the event of a COVID-19 outbreak in the WCJ. 18. On March 12, 2020, the WCSO updated its command staff contact list for purposes of preparing to check in with WCSO personnel who called in sick from work to ensure adequate staffing of the WCJ.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 28
19. Also on March 12, 2020, the WCSO contacted the Weld County Office of Emergency Management (“WCOEM”) for guidance on cleaning out vehicles of WSCO Patrol Division personnel in which a suspected COVID-19-infected arrestee was present and guidance on appropriate PPE for Detentions Division personnel who would have to staff any COVID-19 containment units which might be created at WCJ. [See Exh. A-5.]
20. Also on March 12, 2020, the WCSO learned a North Colorado Medical Center employee tested positive for COVID-19. The WCSO immediately issued guidance to its Patrol Division to take extra precautions for public health and safety, including ensuring PPE was present in all vehicles and keeping hands clean and away from one’s face.
21. On March 13, 2020, the WCSO received from Aramark the safety plan which the WCSO had requested to ensure continuity of service to inmates amid a pandemic yet ensure protection of inmates and staff as much as reasonably possible. [See Exh. A-6.]
22. Also on March 13, 2020, in an effort to implement social distancing guidelines well before the CDPHE or Colorado Governor Jared Polis issued any guidance or directive on this topic, the WCSO suspended all religious volunteer activity for 30 days or until further notice to reduce the exposure of WCSO staff, inmates, and the general public. This suspension, which is neutral and generally applicable, remains in effect today.
23. Also on March 13, 2020, the WCSO suspended all professional visitor activity inside the WCJ except for attorney visits and people needing to conduct official law enforcement business and, subject to availability, permitted people outside of these two limited groups to meet with inmates via videoconference. In accordance with this suspension, the WCSO also strongly encouraged attorneys and law enforcement to visit via videoconference subject to availability but left the option open to meet in professional
7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 28
visiting rooms if those individuals desired and implemented the provision of sanitizing supplies for video equipment to professional visitors wanting to visit via video. The purpose of this protocol was to minimize unnecessary traffic in the WCJ to reduce the risk of exposure to staff, inmates, and the general public while still maintaining access requirements for attorneys and healthy business flow of operations. [See Exh. A-7.]
24. Also on March 13, 2020, along with making efforts to source PPE on its own prior to and including March 13, 2020, the WCSO contacted WCOEM to request fifty (50) PPE masks for use in potential quarantine units within the WCJ. [See Exh. A-8.]
25. Also on March 13, 2020, in an effort to implement social distancing guidelines well before the CDPHE or Governor Polis issued any guidance or directive on this topic, the WCSO published an internal notice to its Detentions Division advising of its efforts to prepare for any spread of COVID-19, including: a request to local law enforcement within Weld County to limit the number of arrestees for the foreseeable future and, if at all and as much as possible, issue a summons and release if the offense is not one for which WCJ confinement would be mandated by state statute; communication of the suspension decisions as to religious volunteer activity and other-than-professional visits; leaving official uniforms at the WCJ to minimize contaminant exchange between home and the WCJ; recommending a pattern and practice of social distancing for all Detentions Division personnel; and listing common symptoms of COVID-19 which may appear 2-14 days after exposure, including fever, cough, and shortness of breath. [See Exh. A-9, Exh. A-10.]
26. Also on March 13, 2020, the WCSO received a response from WCOEM as to its request for guidance on precautions for WCSO Patrol Division and Detentions Division personnel to take for safety of arrestees, inmates,, among others. WCOEM
8

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 28
recommended: each WCSO Patrol Division vehicle be equipped with disposable gloves, a disposable isolation gown, a NIOSH-approved particulate respirator (N-95 or higherlevel respirator), and eye protection (goggles or disposable face shield fully covering front and sides of face); and Patrol Division and Inmate Transport vehicles be equipped with extra masks for arrestees, inmates, to use while in the vehicles, along with decontamination of the vehicle after each such use using an EPA-approved cleaner. The WCSO began to implement these recommendations later that day. [See Exh. A-11.]
27. Also on March 13, 2020, the WCSO generated a video briefing for Detentions Division personnel who may not have read the internal notice published earlier in the day yet, to provide an advisement about the contents of said notice. [See Exh. A-12.]
28. On March 14, 2020, WCSO ranking officers created a COVID-19-specific working binder to ensure consistency of protocols and procedures between shifts.
29. Also on March 14, 2020, the WCSO determined almost none of its personnel met requirements for telework due to the need to maintain adequate staff for effective service to inmates at the WCJ.
30. On March 16, 2020, well before the WCSO had record of any staff, inmate, in the WCJ either showing outward symptoms of or testing positive for COVID-19, the WCSO set aside portions of its facilities at the WCJ for “screening pods,” or transfer units into which new arrestees would be housed for several days for observational purposes before being released to be housed in the WCJ general population.
31. Also on March 16, 2020, to protect the health and safety of inmates in the WCJ, the WCSO directed the substantial limiting of Detentions Division personnel
9

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 28
movement within the WCJ by assigning such personnel to a single specific unit for a much longer period of time.
32. Also on March 16, 2020, in cooperation with the Weld County Public Defender Office (“Weld PD”), the WCSO implemented the use of court phones for public defenders.
33. Also on March 16, 2020, the WCSO issued an internal directive to all WCSO personnel reiterating the need to practice social distancing, frequent handwashing, and immediate contact of primary care provider if fever and cough existed. [See Exh. A-13.]
34. Also on March 16, 2020, the WCSO disseminated a Pandemic Health Emergency and Public Health Order which issued from the WCDPHE Executive Director earlier on this day, which also included a supplemental transmission later on this day on a ban of gatherings of more than 10 individuals, along with employee self-certification forms for all WCSO personnel to use relating to COVID-19 symptoms. [See Exh. A-14.]
35. Also on March 16, 2020, the WCSO made plans to implement new printed COVID-19-specific directives to inmates who were released from the WCJ in light of the Weld County Justice Services Department closing its lobbies.
36. Also on March 16, 2020, the WCSO published an internal notice to all WCSO personnel advising: modifications in communicating of shift briefings to ensure quicker transmission of such information; reminding about Detentions Division personnel now being assigned to the same housing unit as much as reasonably possible until further notice; taking steps to remain at the WCJ to eat meals during shifts. [See Exh. A-15.]
37. On March 17, 2020, the WCSO published a notice to all inmates advising them the WCJ facility limitations associated with COVID-19 would be deemed unable to be grieved to ensure inmate health and safety. [See Exh. A-16.]
10

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 28
38. Also on March 17, 2020, the WCSO received and implemented additional guidance from TKHC concerning more complete list of potential COVID-19 symptoms to observe in inmates, and to contact medical staff immediately if any of the symptoms were observed so WCJ medical professionals could make a medical judgment about whether the inmate needed to be transported to the hospital to be evaluated and screened for their fitness to be in the WCJ population, including if an inmate registered a positive response to even one of several substantive screening questions, said inmate was to be given a mask immediately and immediately transported to an isolation cell. [See Exh. A-17.]
39. Also on March 17, 2020, the WCSO issued a substantive explanation to the Weld PD explaining the reasons why an accusation the WCSO allegedly denied the Weld PD access to one of the Weld PD’s inmate clients was materially untruthful.
40. Also on March 17, 2020, the WCSO issued an internal directive to all WCSO Detentions Division personnel reiterating the need to cooperate with counsel of record for WCJ inmates, whether public defenders or other legal representation, and issuing multiple directives to WCSO staff to ensure such cooperation occurred.
41. On March 18, 2020, the WCSO made the difficult decision to suspend its Jail Based Behavioral Services program until further notice due to sudden and extreme limitations on community resources and cascading business closures.
42. On March 19, 2020, the WCSO received communication from TKHC indicating TKHC was hiring “float nurses” for PRN purposes had a stockpile of face masks and latex gloves, and was constantly monitoring and following public health and safety guidelines.
43. Also on March 19, 2020, the WCSO published an internal notice of its isolation and testing of its 1st suspected case of COVID-19 among WCJ inmates; the person had
11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 28
a low-grade fever, non-productive cough, and several comorbidities; and the person’s entire housing unit was screened, person by person. [See Exh. A-18.]
44. Also on March 19, 2020, the WCSO issued a supplemental social distancing and related restrictions directive to all WCSO personnel, including: limited interaction and alternating schedule from command staff, maintaining 6-foot distance from each other at all times and as much as reasonably possible; required washing of hands when entering and exiting units for any reason; restricting inmate movement between units as much as reasonably possible for purposes of inmate health and safety; forbidding inmate unit mixing during internal and medical transports; forbidding the use of gyms by inmates until further notice to limit the prospect of cross-contamination; requiring “hour outs” to be in groups per booking date; and cleaning and sanitizing the “hour out” area after each group leaves and before the next group enters. [See Exh. A-19.] I personally also sent a notice to all chiefs of police within Weld County requesting, although Governor Polis’ order closing bars and restaurants technically permitted arresting business owners or patrons who did not comply with the order, that only summonses be issued as the WCSO wanted to conserve bed space for those truly in need of confinement. [See Exh. A-20.]
45. On March 20, 2020, the WCSO learned multiple front range county detention facilities, including Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Clear Creek, Douglas, El Paso, Fremont, Gilpin, Jefferson, Kit Carson, Lincoln, Morgan, and Yuma Counties, would no longer be accepting transfer writs.
46. Also on March 20, 2020, the WCSO published an internal notice of its isolation and testing of its 2nd and 3rd suspected case of COVID-19 among WCJ inmates; the 2nd person only had a mid-range fever but was also complaining of chest pain and
12

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 28
tachycardia; the 3rd person had a non-productive cough, a fever, and body aches; both persons tested negative for the flu; and the entire housing units from which both of these persons came were screened, person by person. [See Exh. A-21.] And on March 20, 2020, almost a week before Governor Polis issued the Stay At Home Order, I personally sent a notice to all chiefs of police within Weld County predicting the possibility of such an Order and requesting, though such an Order may technically permit arresting persons who did not comply with it, that only summonses be issued as the WCSO wanted to conserve bed space for those truly in need of confinement. [See Exh. A-22.]
47. On March 21, 2020, the WCSO published another internal directive on new guidelines for mental health services to inmates, including: assigning counselors to specific units for general counseling and giving inmates self-help materials; suspending individual counseling except where determined necessary by a Clinical Supervisor from medical staff, and directing inmates to submit an Inmate Request Form if an urgent need existed; providing a self-report questionnaire for inmates to complete and return in the event a medication review was warranted to minimize face-to-face contact; and assigning daily routine welfare checks to a specific non-designated counselor. [See Exh. A-23.]
48. Also on March 21, 2020, the WCSO was notified of a possible COVID-19 exposure point in the POST certification academy, which suspended operations on March 17, 2020, and advising all personnel must be vigilant to notice symptoms such as fever, cough, and shortness of breath, of which WCSO personnel were told. [See Exh. A-24.]
49. On March 23, 2020, the WCSO issued another supplemental social distancing and related restrictions directive to all WCSO personnel, including: ensuring broadly to house inmates in a safe, humane, and wholesome environment; continuing to maintain a
13

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 28
6-foot distance from each other at all times and as much as reasonably possible; rescheduling all WCSO personnel meetings to be done via Skype call or video conference; doing everything they can to keep the inmate population healthy; and advising WCSO personnel would be subject to random interrogation to make sure they were following social distancing guidelines. [See Exh. A-25.]
50. Also on March 23, 2020, the WCSO ordered 500 surgical-quality masks from TKHC for persons who even potentially were exposed to COVID-19. [See Exh. A-26.]
51. On March 24, 2020, the WCSO issued an internal directive about new COVID19 guidelines for Inmate Classification Specialists, including sanitizing visiting kiosks after each inmate leaves and before the next one enters; and strategic selection of visiting kiosk to balance privacy concerns and social distancing guidelines. [See Exh. A-27.]
52. On March 24, 2020, the WCSO received notification from the Chief Judge for the 19th Judicial District of temporarily suspending execution on all writs issued to the WCSO by a 19th JD judicial officer to transport defendants and witnesses in all criminal, civil, misdemeanor, and traffic cases between March 24, 2020, and May 15, 2020.
53. On March 25, 2020, the WCSO issued another supplemental social distancing and related restrictions directive to all WCSO personnel. [See Exh. A-28.]
54. On March 25, 2020, the WCSO received reports of three male inmates and two female inmates, recently booked into the WCJ, potentially being exposed to COVID19 during a facility transfer unrelated to the WCSO. These five inmates were assessed by medical staff immediately and were observed by medical staff not to have any symptoms of COVID-19, be it fever, cough, or shortness of breath. Medical staff cleared all such inmates to remain in their living units.
14

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 28
55. Also on March 25, 2020, the WCSO received a report of a WCSO deputy testing positive for COVID-19, the first such instance within the WCSO. The WCSO immediately issued an internal directive to all WCSO personnel advising of the positive test, reiterating the extreme importance of maintaining social distancing guidelines, providing an official CDC link for staff to review to remind themselves of the possible symptoms already communicated to them multiple times previously, and asking each WCSO employee to take their temperature before coming into work. [See Exh. A-29.]
56. On March 26, 2020, the WCSO implemented a COVID-19-related procedure for the use and sterilization of library books borrowed by WCJ inmates, including sanitizing books in a secure area in the WCJ after each book was returned as finished by inmates and before each book was returned to the WCJ library. [See Exh. A-30.]
57. Also on March 27, 2020, TKHC advised the WCSO its prior order for 500 surgical masks, which the WCSO made back on March 23, 2020, out of an abundance of caution and out of concern for the health and safety of persons within the WCJ, had been seized by the government of China, which is where the masks were manufactured. THKC further advised it already was exploring alternative means of acquiring the masks and shipping them to the WCSO, and the WCSO also continued to explore ways to acquire the masks in the event the alternative means did not result in a shipment.
58. Also on March 27, 2020, the WCSO implemented a protocol to gather more information from personnel who called in sick, both to check on their welfare and to ensure adequate staff at the WCJ to maintain effective service to inmates. [See Exh. A-31.]
59. Also on March 27, 2020, the WCSO learned of another inmate showing early symptoms of possible COVID-19 infection, the WCSO immediately took the inmate to the
15

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 28
hospital, the entire pod was sanitized during night shift, and WCSO staff supervising this particular pod were issued masks because they were a likely cross-contamination source due to their ability to more freely travel between pods and common areas.
60. On March 28, 2020, the WCSO learned of the first positive case of COVID-19 at the Weld County branch of Intervention Community Corrections Services.
61. On March 29, 2020, the WCSO notified all its personnel of COVID-19 testing facilities for symptomatic law enforcement of which it learned this day.
62. On March 30, 2020, the WCSO received verbal notification from Aramark, in follow-up concerning a request which the WCSO made on March 11, 2020, the WCSO verbally directed Aramark to put its “emergency menu” food safety plan to go into effect in the event sufficient inmate trustees were not available to assist in food preparation.
63. Also on March 30, 2020, a male entered the WCSO public lobby and advised he tested positive for COVID-19 but 19th Judicial still ordered him to report to the WCJ for booking so he was coming to the WCJ to turn himself in. The WCSO immediately contacted 19th Judicial and was able to obtain a personal recognizance bond for this male so he could return to his home and self-quarantine like he was supposed to do. The male never made it past the lobby, and the WCSO sanitized the lobby after he left.
64. Also on March 30, 2020, revised and updated County staff isolation guidelines were published, which the WCSO ensured all staff received. [See Exh. A-32.]
65. On March 31, 2020, in response to a request from the Chief Judge for the 19th Judicial District for judicial sentence review, the WCSO sent to said Chief Judge a list of all inmates then in custody within the WCJ.
16

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 28
66. Also on March 31, 2020, the WCSO suspended all use and functions of WCSO Parole staff within the WCJ in an effort to further reduce movement and interaction.
67. Also on March 31, 2020, the WCSO released an inmate who the day prior had regressed from work release back to his home to self-quarantine, because the inmate had been on furlough from work release due to a presumptive positive COVID-19 diagnosis yet admitted himself to WCJ’s Medical Observation Unit with a mid-grade fever. On March 31, 2020, medical staff determined this inmate should be self-quarantining at home and so he was released to self-quarantine at home.
68. Also on March 31, 2020, the WCSO received notice of the first confirmed case of COVID-19 in the WCJ inmate population.2 As a result, the WCSO immediately placed all inmate members of this confirmed-case inmate’s small pod into quarantine, as follows:
a. all inmates in the quarantined pod were to be kept separate from all others in the WCJ whenever possible;
b. all inmates in the quarantined pod were to be kept separate from each other, within reason, while in the quarantined pod;
c. all inmates of the quarantined pod were to be subject to lockdown, 23 hours in and 1 hour out, with same-cell occupants out only with each other daily;
2 This is the inmate alleged to have been “coughing up blood” and “not treated.” However, such allegations are untrue. This inmate was the one who was first isolated and tested on March 27, 2020; he was transported to the hospital for other underlying comorbidities; while there he was treated for those conditions; he was given a COVID-19 test out of an abundance of caution; he was returned to the WCJ because he had not yet tested positive and the hospital would not keep him under observation at such time; only a few days after returning to the WCJ were the positive test results revealed; and he was transported back to the hospital immediately, where he is believed to currently reside as of the date of this Declaration.
17

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 28
d. no inmate in the quarantined pod was permitted to leave the pod unless it was for release from custody, to attend court, or to see medical staff;
e. no new inmates were to be introduced into the quarantined pod; f. all inmates coming out of intake were to be diverted to other pods; g. staff were directed to limit their exposure to the quarantined pod; h. all meals served to the quarantined pod would be on Styrofoam trays which would be disposed of in trash bags after use and without reuse; i. all inmates in the quarantined pod were required to clean and sanitize all areas and equipment used during their “hour out”; and j. all staff who either heard of or witnessed an inmate experience illness symptoms in either the quarantined pod or any other pod was directed to contact medical staff ASAP so appropriate screenings could commence. [See Exh. A-33.] 69. On April 1, 2020, the entirety of the WCJ went on lockdown protocol (23 hours in, 1 hour out, etc.) to reduce any possible spread of COVID-19 within the WCJ. 70. Also on April 1, 2020, to reduce movement and interaction and do as much as possible to ensure inmate health and safety, WCJ medical staff were directed to perform only essential clinic visits and to perform such visits only in the pods unless deemed medically necessary to be done in the WCJ medical clinic. 71. Also on April 1, 2020, the WCSO implemented protocols to divert all inmates to new transfer units to increase observation time of incoming inmates, eliminate entrance of new inmates to all other units to increase observation of all units, and otherwise do as much as possible to ensure inmate health and safety.
18

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 28
72. Also on April 1, 2020, the WCSO suspended reclassification between pods to prevent inmate movement throughout the WCJ for inmate health and safety.
73. Also on April 1, 2020, the WCSO began tracking all sick call personnel and all sick inmates in the entirety of the WCJ, including detailing with whom they were in contact and with whom they were working with prior to their diagnosis, and with whom they have been in contact with since they have been out sick (personnel) or sick (inmates).
74. Also on April 1, 2020, the WCSO learned all new municipal warrants issued by the Greeley Police Department would now be converted automatically into personal recognizance bond for a return date at least two months in the future.
75. On April 2, 2020, the WCSO generated and published to all inmates a video from its Jail Captain for COVID-19 information-sharing purposes. [See Exh. A-34.]
76. Also on April 2, 2020, the WCSO suspended the introduction of new inmate trustees into pods and made each inmate trustee the designated in-pod inmate cleaner and sanitizer for their individual pod, in an effort to reduce inmate interaction.
77. Also on April 2, 2020, a day before Governor Polis recommended all citizens to wear at least cloth masks in public, the WCSO provided all WCSO personnel with single-use N-95 masks and encouraged the use of cloth masks to conserve supplies.
78. Also on April 2, 2020, the WCSO was advised Weld County Building and Grounds staff would need to limit their work within the WCJ to essential services due to a desire to ensure public health and safety and to defer all other maintenance.
79. On April 3, 2020, the WCSO implemented further reduced reclassification protocols between pods to further prevent inmate movement in the WCJ for inmate health and safety, reiterating the previously-deemed-mandatory social distancing protocols.
19

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 28
80. On April 4, 2020, the WCSO set up staff decontamination stations outside quarantine units which staff were required to use prior to entry, including sanitization of all medical and food service carts, sanitizing bottom of shoes, stepping and not wiping shoes on towel to remove excess spray, sanitizing hands with hand sanitizer, walking slowly and carefully and washing hands. [See Exh. A-35.]
81. On April 6, 2020, the WCSO implemented a protocol requiring inmate trustees, none of whom were as yet even mildly symptomatic for a symptom of COVID-19 (except two of them who had immediately been removed from the trustee program upon exhibiting quite mild symptoms), to have their body temperature taken before beginning work and to wear masks which the inmate trustees were required to wear at all times while working.
82. On April 7, 2020, the WCSO implemented a protocol requiring all WCSO staff to have their body temperature taken before beginning work and mandating if they were running even a low-grade fever, they must seek outside medical attention immediately.
83. On April 8, 2020, the WCSO finally received its shipment of 500 masks which it ordered from TKHC back on March 23, 2020. WCSO personnel immediately distributed a mask to each inmate and communicated expectations to inmates on how the masks were supposed to be used properly.
84. On April 9, 2020, signs were posted in English and Spanish in all housing units about COVID-19, and signs were hung for all WCSO personnel reminding them of the COVID-19-related information they previously were given. [See Exh. A-36, Exh. A-37.]
85. On April 10, 2020, all WCSO deputies were issued reusable goggles which were to be worn when interacting with inmates or when in isolation or medical units.
20

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 28
86. Also on April 10, 2020, Daniel Williams (counsel for Plaintiffs), Dr. Carlos Franco-Paredes (Plaintiffs’ expert witness), Dr. Valerie Smith (WCHD), and someone from the Weld County Attorney’s Office were given a tour of the WCJ for approximately 3 hours and 15 minutes including donning and doffing of personal protective equipment, during which time all participants were escorted by two WCSO personnel for their safety and security, were permitted to view whatever areas they desired of WCJ operations, and were permitted to ask all questions they desired on the WCSO response to COVID-19.
87. Also on April 10, 2020, all WCJ inmates were each given their own flyer stating CDC-recommended mask use and COVID-19 precautions, and still further signs were posted within the WCJ with additional information on COVID-19, and these efforts were intended to increase inmate awareness of disease prevention methods. [See Exh. A-38.]
88. Also on April 10, 2020, WCSO personnel attended a COVID-19 webinar from TKHC with recommendations confirming the efficacy of WCSO’s actions. [Exh. A-39.]
ADDITIONAL ASPECTS OF THE WCSO’S MEASURED RESPONSE TO COVID-19 89. The WCSO intends to keep refining procedures at the WCJ, within supply-
chain and state-law limitations, to continue to ensure the high levels of inmate health and safety which already exist, both for the duration of this pandemic and on into the future.
90. As of well before this pandemic and continuing into the foreseeable future, inmates were, are, and will be given opportunity to wash their hands several times daily.
91. Sanitation supplies (hand soap, soap dispensers, and hospital-grade cleaner) already have been free of cost, are free of cost, and will continue to be free of cost to inmates. Sanitation supplies are also provided on demand to every inmate within WCJ security measures and allowing for the inertia which being on lockdown necessitates.
21

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 28
92. With respect to hand sanitizer, however, not only has it been almost impossible to find, but also it is not able to be distributed to inmates due to its high ethanol content — i.e, there is a substantial risk inmates could attempt to get drunk or high on it or actually get drunk or high on it.
93. Sinks, toilets, drinking fountains, tables, and other potential common exposure areas inmates routinely use in the WCJ are sanitized multiple times a day.
94. Inmates have been directed, when they make use of the toilet in common areas, to use bottles of hospital-grade cleaner stationed near the toilet for this purpose to clean the toilet both before they use the toilet and after they use the toilet.
95. This mandate on inmates applies to all toilets in all inmate common areas. 96. Inmate mattresses are cleaned routinely with the same type of hospital-grade cleaner as the cleaner used on toilets. Inmate mattresses can be cleaned as frequently as the inmate chooses (within reason) are always decontaminated after use, and are cleaned by inmate trustee workers or by Detentions Division staff. 97. One minimum security housing unit in particular holds 60 inmates, all of whom have been directed to follow this toilet-sanitizing procedure. 98. Laundry-cleaning measures within the WCJ also have been stepped up since April 1, 2020, such that laundry items are laundered inside the pod first and then at the general WCJ laundry facilities second, meaning laundry items are in effect laundered twice; and laundry items from the quarantine units and the MedObs units are aired for 72 hours prior to being subject to this laundering protocol.
22

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 28
99. WCJ medical staff and nurses are going door-to-door for med rounds and making personal contact with each inmate, so inmates have a prime opportunity to address with medical professionals any possible symptom they experience.
100. Due to the present scarcity of COVID-19 tests, the WCSO is having to triage who to test (as evidenced by the screening question protocols set forth above and attached), and the WCSO has placed multiple requests to TKHC and to the Weld County Health Department for additional tests but has received no additional tests.
101. Moreover, inmates over the age of 55, inmates with comorbidities including but not limited to heart issues, lung issues, and smokers, and inmates who are pregnant already receive an increased amount of medical attention in the WCJ from the date they arrive at the WCJ, so they are being more closely monitored. This monitoring includes all Plaintiffs who would fall within any such category. The protocols of WCJ medical staff in relation to inmates with such medical conditions would be consistent with their need for treatment. If an inmate is in a risk category and the inmate make such fact known to medical upon screening and routine visits, then the inmate would receive the necessary medical supervision for the inmate’s condition.
102. Although all symptomatic inmates are being housed together in the same quarantine unit without any non-symptomatic inmates (per the above-stated protocol), it is not outside the realm of possibility for inmates to hide their symptoms and to decline to tell the truth about their health when asked about it directly by WCJ medical personnel.
103. Further, the media consumption of WCJ inmates continues unabated. Inmates are still furnished with all regular newspapers they were otherwise provided prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic; their TVs are available and used and they are
23

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 28
able to get news from the outside world as to the pandemic; and video updates from the WCSO periodically are published to inmates to update them on the situation generally.
104. And WCSO Detentions Division personnel are doing their part to conserve masks for the inmate population by wearing their own cloth masks within the WCJ.
BIG DECLINE IN WCJ INMATE POPULATION GIVEN LEGAL RESTRICTIONS 105. As of 8:00 AM April 13, 2020, the WCJ is down to 513 inmates, a 35%
reduction in population since March 1, 2020, and that may decrease by end of day today. 106. A total of 68 inmates currently housed in the WCJ have been sentenced to
serve their period of incarceration within the Colorado Department of Corrections (“CDOC”), but the CDOC has implemented a temporary yet mandatory moratorium on accepting new intakes from county jails, meaning these inmates must stay put at WCJ.
107. A total of 408 inmates currently housed in the WCJ are pretrial detainees, meaning their criminal trials have yet to be held and are not likely to be held in the near future given the Chief Judge of the 19th Judicial District vacated all trials through and including May 15, 2020, meaning these inmates must stay put at WCJ. As Sheriff, I do not possess any legal authority to modify or revoke these pretrial detainees’ bonds which are set by the state court judge. Nor do I as Sheriff possess any legal authority to permit any of these inmates to serve their pretrial period at home or any other detention facility other than the WCJ. Any such decision would have to be made by the state court judge.
108. This leaves a total of 37 inmates currently housed within the WCJ who have been sentenced to serve their period of incarceration at the WCJ. It is most, but not all, of these inmates who make up the above-referenced “inmate trustee” population who work at WCJ in food services and are given a small degree of janitorial duties.
24

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 28
109. However, the WCSO employs its own staff of janitors assigned to the WCJ who handle the vast majority of janitorial and sanitizing duties within the WCJ.
110. Regardless, it is only these 37 inmates who have even a slight probability of early release from the WCJ, but almost all of them either pleaded guilty to or were convicted after a trial of offenses which counsel strongly against early release given the WCSO’s concurrent need to protect a community which is on lockdown, such as assaults, domestic violence crimes, drug offenses, DUIs, and failures to comply with court orders.
111. These 42 inmates are being released as they complete their sentences and each inmate is receiving the maximum amount of good time available to them based on their crime and classification status, but I have no authority to reduce their sentences unilaterally; statute requires them to move the state court judge for a sentence reduction.
112. The WCJ currently could house 1177 inmates. However, with regard to whether the physical plant of the WCJ could accommodate giving six feet of space at all times to all inmates by housing inmates either single-celled in housing units with double occupancy cells or by housing inmates two to a cell for each housing unit with four-person or six-person cells, the WCJ would have room to house only 350 inmates in this manner. Thus, it is impossible within the laws of mathematics and of physics to maintain six feet of distance between all inmates at all times within the WCJ given the number of inmates which my office is statutorily and judicially required to continue housing there.
113. Also, the WCJ’s year-to-date net operating cost is $77,470 daily through February 29, 2020, which does not account for certain utilities-type expenses like electric, water, trash, insurance, etc. This is the most current figure I can offer the Court at present because, although a March 2020 daily average will give the Court a more accurate sense
25

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 28
of the WCJ’s reduction in operational costs due to significant attrition in inmate population since March 1, 2020, I simply do not have those figures to give the Court at this time.
114. Further, on February 1, 2020, the WCJ housed 796 inmates. From February 1, 2020 to April 11, 2020, WCJ daily bookings totaled 1765 additional inmates for a cumulative total of 2561 inmates who have been in the custody of the WCJ at some point in that time. Of those 2561 inmates, ten (10) total have tested positive for COVID-19, an overall infection rate of 0.39% of all persons in the custody of the WCJ at some point since February 1, 2020, and twenty-five (25) total have been quarantined (some of whom have tested negative and others who are awaiting test results) an overall quarantine rate of 0.98% of all persons in the custody of the WCJ at some point since February 1, 2020.
IMPORTANT, PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON INMATE PLAINTIFFS 115. It seems vital to provide the Court with publicly available information on the
Plaintiffs for the Court generally, and to evaluate the significant public safety issues at stake specifically. What is included in my Declaration is limited to information otherwise available to a member of the public not employed with law enforcement or the judiciary.
116. Inmate Plaintiff Thomas Carranza has a lengthy arrest record, which is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit A-40. Carranza currently is housed in the WCJ on Third Degree Assault charges, his next scheduled court date is not until May 4, 2020, and he filed two motions for personal recognizance bond, both of which were denied.
117. Inmate Plaintiff Jesus Martinez has a lengthy arrest record, which is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit A-41. Martinez currently is housed in the WCJ on Escape, Controlled Substance, and Vehicular Eluding charges, including a Parole hold without bond, and his next scheduled court date is not until June 22, 2020.
26

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 28
118. Inmate Plaintiff Richard Barnum has a lengthy arrest record, which is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit A-42. Barnum currently is housed in the WCJ on charges of First Degree Assault with Deadly Weapon; Second Degree Assault with Deadly Weapon, Felony Menacing (two counts), and First Degree Trespass of Auto with Intent to Commit Crime, and his next scheduled court date is April 15, 2020.
119. Inmate Plaintiff Thomas Lewis has a lengthy arrest record, which is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit A-43. Lewis currently is housed in the WCJ on charges of Driving Under the Influence with Three or More Priors, Possession of Controlled Substance, Obstructing a Peace Officer, Driving After Revocation Prohibited, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, and Failure to Comply with Probation, and his next scheduled court date is May 18, 2020.
120. Inmate Plaintiff Michael Ward was released from the WCJ on April 9, 2020. His arrest record and current charges are attached to this Declaration as Exhibit A-44. His next scheduled court date for charges of First Degree Trespass to Auto is April 14, 2020, and his next scheduled court date for charges of Failure to Comply with Probation for Third Degree Assault is May 6, 2020.
121. Inmate Plaintiff Colby Propes was released from the WCJ on April 7, 2020. His lengthy arrest record is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit A-45. His next court date is May 18, 2020, on charges of Driving Under Revocation (4), Interlock Violation (2), Careless Driving, Blocking Railroad Crossing, Identity Theft, Theft, Criminal Possession of Financial Device, Criminal Possession of Identification Documents, Unauthorized Use of Financial Transaction Device, First Degree Aggravated Motor Vehicle Theft,
27

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 28
Obstructing a Police Officer, Possession of a Controlled Substance, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, Failure to Display Proof of Insurance, and Lane Violation.
122. Inmate Plaintiff Chad Hunter has a lengthy arrest record, which is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit A-46. Hunter currently is housed in the WCJ on charges of Driving Under Revocation, Driving Without Insurance, and Defective Headlights, for which his next scheduled court date is July 31, 2020; and Failure to Comply with Warrant for: Displaying Unlawful License Plate, Driving Without Insurance, Driving Under Revocation, Possession of Weapon by Previous Offender; Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, Possession of Controlled Substance, and Possession of Forged Instrument, for which his next scheduled court date is April 14, 2020.
123. Cumulatively, none of the charges these Plaintiffs are facing counsel one iota in favor of their early release before it would otherwise be statutorily required or otherwise be ordered by a state court judge.
124. Finally, the WCJ has never housed nine inmates in a single cell in my more than five-year tenure as Sheriff of Weld County. I understand the statements written in this Declaration are given under penalty of perjury. All of the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, the foregoing is true and correct. FURTHER DECLARANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
Dated and executed this 13th day of April, 2020.
s/ Steven Reams Steven Reams, Sheriff of Weld County
28

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-2 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10
EXHIBIT A-1
From: Human Resources <humanresources@CO.WELD.CO.US> Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 4:22 PM To: ALLWELD@LISTSERV.CO.WELD.CO.US Subject: Coronavirus (COVID‐19) Employee Message
Human Resources continues to examine potential impacts of the highly publicized Coronavirus (abbreviated “COVID‐19”) to employees. With Dr. Wallace’s expertise and our local Health Department’s guidance and resources, we know there are no reported Coronavirus (COVID‐19) cases in either Weld County or the state of Colorado. The Health Department offers up‐to‐date information accessible from the County department link on the internet at https://www.weldgov.com/departments/health and environment . Dr. Wallace maintains the risk of exposure in Weld County is very low at this time, and, there is no recommendation for use of surgical masks in the general population. Masks used incorrectly will not offer protection from contracting the infection or spreading it to others. Use of masks should be limited to situations ordered by health professionals and in which clear instructions for proper use have been given to the person. Although we can’t predict how the illness will affect us in the future, we do know we can implement the following safety precautions for any virus or illness:  frequently cleaning our hands by washing them or using an alcohol‐based hand rub when soap and water are not available  covering our noses and mouths when coughing and sneezing  avoiding close contact with those exhibiting cold or flu‐like symptoms  staying home when we’re sick  getting an annual flu vaccine if you haven’t had one.
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-2 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 10
EXHIBIT A-2
From: Matthew Elbe <melbe@weldgov.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 3:17 PM To: DD Sergeants <DDSergeants@co.weld.co.us> Cc: dowens@turnkeyhealthclinics.com Subject: COVID19 Screening in Booking Sgts., Starting tonight at midnight, all arrestees need to have screening questions (see attached document) asked of them while in the booking vestibule prior to coming in on the secure side of booking. If the arrestee answers any of the questions in the positive, medical must be contacted immediately and a more targeted screening assessment will be completed before the arrestee can enter the booking area. This will require booking Deputies and Corporals to interact with inmates to get these questions answered. These forms must be given to medical staff even if there is not a positive response to any of the questions. Booking deputies must keep these forms in a folder and nursing staff will pick them up when they are down there screening inmates as these will become a permanent record in their medical chart. Medical has isolation protocols they will institute should that be necessary in line with what we did for the flu recently. Negative airflow rooms will be used first, and if the population of suspected cases grows past the capacity of those rooms, then we will have to open housing unit/s as isolation units/s. Know that this is a possibility. Please make sure Booking Deputies are aware of their responsibility in regards to this, that they make appropriate notification of medical to positive responses to questions and they ensure that medical gets all the screening forms back. Thanks all – I appreciate your attention to this matter. Lieutenant Matt Elbe Detentions Division Weld County Sheriff’s Office 2110 O Street Greeley, CO 80634 970‐400‐3817 melbe@weldgov.com
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-2 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 10
EXHIBIT A-2
CORONA VIRUS SCREENING

NAME/ NOMBRE: ______________________________ DOB: ________________________________

1. DO YOU HAVE FEEL YOU HAVE A FEVER, FLU LIKE SYMPTOMS AND A COUGH OR SHORTNESS OF BREATH? ¿SIENTE QUE SIENTE QUE TIENE FIEBRE, GRIPE COMO SÍNTOMAS Y UNA TOS O CORTA DE RESPIRACIÓN?

YES/SI

NO

2. HAVE YOU TRAVELED OUTSIDE THE US IN THE LAST MONTH? ¿HAS VIAJADO FUERA DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS EN EL ÚLTIMO MES?

YES/SI

NO

3. HAVE YOU BEEN EXPOSED BY ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL DIAGNOSED WITH OR SUPSECTED TO HAVE COVID-19? ¿HA SIDO EXPUESTO POR OTRO DIAGNOSTICO INDIVIDUAL O SUFICIENTE COVID-19?

YES/SI

NO

IF YES TO ANY OF THE ABOVE, NOTIFY MEDICAL STAFF TO CONDUCT PRESCREENING CLEARANCE DEPUTY: _________________________________________ DATE: ___________________________

MEDICAL SCREENING (ONLY IF INDICATED): VS: TEMP _______ RR: ________ SPO2: _______ BP: __________

ISOLATION:

YES

NO

NURSE: ________________________________________ DATE/TIME: _______________________________

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-2 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 10
EXHIBIT A-3
From: Matthew Turner Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 3:35 PM To: Toby Taylor <ttaylor@weldgov.com>; Steven Reams <sreams@weldgov.com> Subject: RE: COVID‐19 Toby, Please find the attached operations plan regarding our reaction to communicable diseases that has been modified to specifically deal with COVID‐19. We have had these plans in place for many years to deal with Influenza, H1N1, Ebola and a whole list of other illnesses that have made their way through our area. My staff is extremely capable of handling this issue and we are not worried about our response to this issue. Just two months ago we were able to contain a breakout of Influenza within our facility without any need for external services or support. We initiated talks with our medical vendor last week to ensure that we were properly planning for an event should we be presented with one. As stated in the memo, dissemination of specific information regarding operational procedure to interact with any communicable disease could represent a significant risk to the safety, security and orderly operations of the Weld County Jail. Details regarding any such procedures will be released as needed on a need to know basis. Thanks,
Captain Matt Turner
Weld County Sheriff’s Office Detentions Division 970‐400‐2838 "Men wanted for hazardous journey. Small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in case of success." -Earnest Shackleton, 4 Burlington St
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-2 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 10

From: Toby Taylor <ttaylor@weldgov.com>

Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 7:35 AM

EXHIBIT A-3

To: Steven Reams <sreams@weldgov.com>; Matthew Turner <mturner@weldgov.com>

Subject: COVID‐19

With the COVID‐19 ramping up, our Public Health folks are needing to understand how the Jail and Jail medical provider plans to cope with this outbreak.

I have been requested to outreach to you so we know how the medical contractor is approaching this issue. Public Health needs to know there is access for their staff to test and isolate any suspected cases within the jail. This is to balance the protecting other inmates from spread as well as minimizing risk to deputies and staff working in the jail.

In addition, what are the protocols with staff should potential cases arise.

Please discuss this item with the medical provider contractor. Once you have some indication, please let me know so I can funnel into the larger plan for dealing with this issue. In addition, I will make myself available for any discussion or meeting that is needed to get ahead of this one.

Toby Taylor, Director Weld County Department of Buildings & Grounds Weld County Veterans Services 1105 H Street P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 P: 970.400.2023 F: 970.304.6532 ttaylor@weldgov.com

2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-2 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 10
EXHIBIT A-3
COVID-19 Response Plan
Dissemination of specific information regarding operational procedure to interact with any communicable disease could represent a significant risk to the safety, security and orderly operations of the Weld County Jail. Details regarding any such procedures will be released as needed on a need to know basis. The Detentions Division is aware of COVID19 and the potential effects it could have on the operations of the jail, Weld County Sheriff’s Office staff and the inmate population. Any responses to the effects COVID19 could have on the jail need to remain fluid as information is gained and the situation continues to develop. The Weld County Sheriff’s Office maintains a proactive approach in planning for potential impacts of communicable diseases such as COVID19, should they begin to effect jail operations. Arrest Screening:
- Beginning 03/12/2020 all arrestees will be asked screening questions related to symptomology possibly associated with COVID19. If a presumptive positive response is gained from these screening questions, medical staff will perform a more purposeful and targeted assessment to determine: o The appropriateness of clearing the arrestee for admission to the jail o The need to potentially isolate the individual from the rest of the jail population
In-custody Screening: - Any and all in custody inmates complaining of symptoms potentially related to COVID19 will be immediately screened by medical staff to determine the potential need for isolation. - Inmates deemed by medical staff to be experiencing symptoms potentially related to COVID19 will be isolated following our medical vendor’s (Turnkey) protocol for “Respiratory Isolation Preparedness”.
Isolation Protocol: - Negative airflow rooms will be utilized to house inmates in isolation when/if needed. - If the population of inmates needing to be isolated exceeds the capacity of the negative airflow rooms, a designated housing unit/s will be used as an isolation unit. - Isolation of these inmates will be for 14 days or otherwise in accordance to CDC guidelines.

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-2 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 10
EXHIBIT A-3
o If an inmate is scheduled for release, or bonds out of jail, quarantine procedures will be halted. No inmate will be held past their release date due to a presumptive positive response gained from this screening.
Cooperation with Outside Entities: - Medical staff will contact the appropriate health authorities to obtain and ensure proper testing is completed for COVID19 and all reporting requirements are adhered to. - Medical staff will work with the State Department of Health and any and all other governmental agencies to ensure they have all necessary equipment, testing kits and reporting procedures completed. - If needed, medical staff and the Weld County Sheriff’s Office Detentions Division will contact local health authorities, to include Weld County Public Health in determining appropriate actions and, if needed, appropriate management of COVID19 in the jail.
Captain Matt Turner
Weld County Sheriff’s Office Detentions Division 970-400-2838

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-2 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 10
EXHIBIT A-4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-2 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 10
EXHIBIT A-5
From: Matthew Turner Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 1:40 PM To: Roy Rudisill <rrudisill@weldgov.com> Subject: RE: PPE Awesome. Can you also find out what chemical I would need to use to clean out a patrol car that may have a sick person on board? Thanks, Matt From: Roy Rudisill <rrudisill@weldgov.com> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 1:33 PM To: Matthew Turner <mturner@weldgov.com> Subject: RE: PPE Let me work with the Health Department on that, I’m assuming it would be a mask as you would not be providing medical care but I’ll confirm with the HD. Roy Rudisill, Director Office of Emergency Management 1150 O St. Greeley, Co 970-381-0417 Mobile 970-304-6540 Office
Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e‐mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Matthew Turner <mturner@weldgov.com> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 1:24 PM
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-2 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 10

To: Roy Rudisill <rrudisill@weldgov.com> Subject: PPE
Roy,

EXHIBIT A-5

If I needed to outfit a pod or two at my facility to work as a containment site for arrestees who have tested presumptive positive for COVID‐19…. What type of PPE should my deputies/staff members wear?

Thanks,

Captain Matt Turner
Weld County Sheriff’s Office Detentions Division 970‐400‐2838
"Men wanted for hazardous journey. Small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in case of success."
-Earnest Shackleton, 4 Burlington St

2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 31 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 32 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 33 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 34 of 34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-4 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 14
EXHIBIT A-11
From: Curtis Hall <chall@weldgov.com> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 4:47 PM To: Matthew Turner <mturner@weldgov.com> Cc: Roy Rudisill <rrudisill@weldgov.com>; Toby Taylor <ttaylor@weldgov.com>; David Springer <dspringer@weldgov.com>; Mike Livengood <mlivengood@weldgov.com>; Kelly Leffler <kleffler@weldgov.com> Subject: FW: PPE Below is the information we have to date pertaining to PPE and cleaning a patrol vehicle. Curtis Hall Deputy Director Public Works 1111 “H” street Greeley CO 80632 970‐400‐3721
Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e‐mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited.
From: Kelly Leffler <kleffler@weldgov.com> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 3:58 PM To: Roy Rudisill <rrudisill@weldgov.com>; Toby Taylor <ttaylor@weldgov.com> Cc: Michelle Raimer <mraimer@weldgov.com>; Ryan Rose <rrose@weldgov.com>; Curtis Hall <chall@weldgov.com>; Patti Russell <prussell@weldgov.com> Subject: RE: PPE As far as PPE for our Patrol First responders, the recommendations from the CDC are going to be:
 Disposable Gloves  Disposable isolation gown  NIOSH‐ approved particulate respirator (N‐95 or higher‐level respirator)  Eye protection (goggles or disposable face shield that fully covers the front and sides of the face.
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-4 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 14
Ideally it would be nice to have each First Responder vehicle equipped with a set of all 4 of the above items. The
Sheriff’s office has 58 first responder vehicles. EXHIBIT A-11
As far as decontamination for the Patrol vehicles as well as Inmate transport, making sure that anyone that is transported in those vehicles that is confirmed or suspected to have COVID‐19 have a mask on as well. Once they are out of the vehicle putting the vehicle through decontamination by cleaning with one of the appropriate cleaners from this link https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020‐03/documents/sars‐cov‐2‐list 03‐03‐2020.pdf
For Human Services, they have stated that they have approximately 28 people who could potentially be entering into a household for an in home visit. I would recommend that they use proper precautions by contacting the household prior to the visit and asking the appropriate questions to assure their safety, ie. Is anyone in the household traveled, been in contact with someone who has tested positive for COVID‐19, or is anyone symptomatic? If the answer is yes to any of these questions, I would recommend if at all possible avoiding the visit. If unable to avoid, make sure they are taking proper precautionary measures by washing hands, avoid touching the face and keep at least 6 feet away from the individuals.
There are no recommendations present from the CDC on decontamination of vehicles, outside of those that are carrying patients that are symptomatic or at risk for testing positive for COVID‐19. When it comes to our fleet vehicles it is important to remind employees to use the everyday practices of washing hands and wiping down the inside of vehicle with the disinfected provided by Building and Grounds.
Please let me know if there is any way I can be of assistance. In communicating today with the various departments, I know you are in communication and working directly with the individual departments, but I am willing to assist in any way possible.
Kelly Leffler
Employee Health and Productivity Specialist Human Resources 1150 “O” Street Greeley, CO 80631 Phone: (970) 400-4220 Cell: (970) 518-6106 Fax: (970) 352-9019
Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e‐mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited.
From: Roy Rudisill <rrudisill@weldgov.com> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 8:34 AM To: Kelly Leffler <kleffler@weldgov.com>; Toby Taylor <ttaylor@weldgov.com> Cc: Michelle Raimer <mraimer@weldgov.com>; Curtis Naibauer <cnaibauer@weldgov.com>; Ryan Rose <rrose@weldgov.com> Subject: RE: PPE
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-4 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 14
Kelly, when you get an idea of what they will needEfXorHPPIEB, leItTmAe k-n1ow1so I can add it to my list for a resource request.
Roy Rudisill, Director Office of Emergency Management 1150 O St. Greeley, Co 970-381-0417 Mobile 970-304-6540 Office
Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e‐mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited.
From: Kelly Leffler <kleffler@weldgov.com> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 8:09 AM To: Toby Taylor <ttaylor@weldgov.com> Cc: Michelle Raimer <mraimer@weldgov.com>; Curtis Naibauer <cnaibauer@weldgov.com>; Roy Rudisill <rrudisill@weldgov.com>; Ryan Rose <rrose@weldgov.com> Subject: Re: PPE I am on it!!! Thanks Toby Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 13, 2020, at 8:00 AM, Toby Taylor <ttaylor@weldgov.com> wrote:
Kelly/Michelle, As the safety section for the COG now, we need assistance with the following items:
1. Equipment and Personnel are putting together decontamination procedures for vehicles (patrol, PW, and inmate transport). They need the minimum recommended PPE.
2. The Human Services folks have staff that do home visits. They have requested the recommended PPE for performing these activities.
Please consult with the Health Department on what is recommended and when so these two items can be addressed. Toby Taylor, Director Weld County Department of Buildings & Grounds
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-4 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 14

Weld County Veterans Services 1105 H Street P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 P: 970.400.2023 F: 970.304.6532 ttaylor@weldgov.com

EXHIBIT A-11

4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-4 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 14
EXHIBIT A-12
EXHIBIT A-12 CONSISTS OF A SINGLE VIDEO FILE GENERATED BY THE WCSO ON OR ABOUT MARCH 13, 2020 BEING PROVIDED TO THE COURT UNDER SEPARATE COVER WITH A COPY BEING SENT TO ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-4 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 14
EXHIBIT A-13
From: Steven Reams <sreams@weldgov.com> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 1:08 PM To: SheriffsOffice <SheriffsOffice@co.weld.co.us> Subject: Covid 19 and Sheriff's Offfice Operations To all, The Board of County Commissioners will be issuing some orders for the processing of business in the County in the upcoming hours. Your immediate divisions supervisors will also be providing more specific information about how our operations will be impacted. There are some important pieces of information for all of us to be mindful of: Wash your hands frequently! Limit your exposure to crowds and social functions If you are experiencing the combination of a fever and cough, immediately schedule an appointment with your primary care doctor and call your supervisor for further guidance for work issues Wash your hands again! Bring your lunch to work, don’t plan on restaurants being available for dine in functions Wash your hands some more!
Even if you are infected with Covid 19, you are likely not at serious risk unless you are above 65 years old and have other underlying medical conditions. We will continue to adjust county operations as needed depending on what goes on in the community. Remember, limit your social circles and your chance of exposure!
Sheriff Reams
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-4 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 14
EXHIBIT A-14

From: Weld Media <WELDMEDIA@LISTSERV.CO.WELD.CO.US> On Behalf Of Jennifer Finch Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 3:50 PM To: WELDMEDIA@LISTSERV.CO.WELD.CO.US Subject: FW: News Release: Pandemic Health Emergency Declared Importance: High

From: Eric Aakko <eaakko@weldgov.com> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 3:27 PM Subject: News Release: Pandemic Health Emergency Declared Importance: High

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 16, 2020

Contact:

Eric Aakko Public Information Officer (970) 400‐2380; (970) 673‐2893 (mobile)

Pandemic Health Emergency and Public Health Order Issued by Weld County

Weld County – By the order of Mark E. Wallace, MD, MPH, Executive Director of the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment, and the County Health Officer, a Pandemic Health Emergency and Public Health Order is issued. “The main reason for this declaration is we need to reduce the impact and spread of the COVID‐19 virus in Weld County,” said Dr. Wallace. The declaration will also help protect high‐risk populations like older adults, pregnant women, and people who are immunocompromised or with chronic health conditions. “This declaration will also help protect our Weld County work force and their families,” said Wallace.

The Public Health Order requires social distancing be enacted. Social distancing means people stay at least 6 feet away from each other, and all events of 10 people or more are cancelled. All events at the following locations are prohibited, regardless of the number of attendees: day‐care centers, child‐care centers, private schools (including pre‐ schools), private day schools, community recreation centers, ice rinks, and libraries. “Event” does not include places of employment. Restaurants may need to switch to limited seating or switch to drive‐thru or take‐out orders. This order is effective until April 8, 2020.

Other preventive actions for preventing influenza, the common cold, and COVID‐19 include:
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-4 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 14

 Clean and disinfect frequently touched objects with regular household cleaning products.



Frequently and before

wash your hands with soap eating; a hand sanitizer can

ahneEdlpXwifaHhteaIrnBfdowIrTaatshlAeina-sgt1is240noset caovnadilas,beles.pecially

after

going

to

the

bathroom

 Cover your cough with your elbow or sneeze into a tissue, then throw the tissue in the trash.

 Stay home if you are sick. If you work or go into the community sick, many may get sick.

 Limit close contact with people and keep a distance of at least 6 feet.

The current treatment for most people who get COVID‐19 is rest, recovery, and self‐isolation at home. About 80% of people who become ill will recover on their own. The seriously ill may require hospitalization or other care.

For more information
For general questions about COVID‐19 in Colorado, call the state CO HELP line at 303‐389‐1687 or 1‐877‐462‐2911 or email at COHELP@RMPDC.org. For updated COVID‐19 information, including the full declaration and Public Health Order visit: www.weldhealth.org.
###

Eric Aakko, MS MCHES Division Director Health Education, Communication, and Planning Department of Public Health and Environment 1555 North 17th Ave, Greeley, Colorado 970.400.2380

Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e‐mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited.
ListServ

2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-4 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 14

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
EX1H55I5BNITortAh -117t4h Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631 www.weldhealth.org

March 16, 2020

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:

Eric Aakko Public Information Officer (970) 400-2380; (970) 673-2893 (mobile)

Pandemic Health Emergency and Public Health Order Issued by Weld County

Weld County – By the order of Mark E. Wallace, MD, MPH, Executive Director of the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment, and the County Health Officer, a Pandemic Health Emergency and Public Health Order is issued. “The main reason for this declaration is we need to reduce the impact and spread of the COVID-19 virus in Weld County,” said Dr. Wallace. The declaration will also help protect high-risk populations like older adults, pregnant women, and people who are immunocompromised or with chronic health conditions. “This declaration will also help protect our Weld County work force and their families,” said Wallace.

The Public Health Order requires social distancing be enacted. Social distancing means people stay at least 6 feet away from each other, and all events of 10 people or more are cancelled. All events at the following locations are prohibited, regardless of the number of attendees: day-care centers, child-care centers, private schools (including pre-schools), private day schools, community recreation centers, ice rinks, and libraries. “Event” does not include places of employment. Restaurants may need to switch to limited seating or switch to drive-thru or take-out orders. This order is effective until April 8, 2020.

Other preventive actions for preventing influenza, the common cold, and COVID-19 include: • Clean and disinfect frequently touched objects with regular household cleaning products. • Frequently wash your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, especially after going to the bathroom and before eating; a hand sanitizer can help if hand washing is not available. • Cover your cough with your elbow or sneeze into a tissue, then throw the tissue in the trash. • Stay home if you are sick. If you work or go into the community sick, others may get sick. • Limit close contact with people and keep a distance of at least 6 feet.

The current treatment for most people who get COVID-19 is rest, recovery, and self-isolation at home. About 80% of people who become ill will recover on their own. The seriously ill may require hospitalization or other care.

For more information For general questions about COVID-19 in Colorado, call the state CO HELP line at 303-389-1687 or 1-877462-2911 or email at COHELP@RMPDC.org. For updated COVID-19 information, including the full declaration and Public Health Order visit: www.weldhealth.org.
###

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-4 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 14
EXHIBIT A-15
From: Matthew Elbe <melbe@weldgov.com> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 8:37 PM To: DD Deputies <DDDeputies@co.weld.co.us>; DD Supervisors <DDSupervisors@co.weld.co.us>; DD Inmate Services <DDinmateservices@co.weld.co.us> Subject: Continued COVID‐19 Response Importance: High
Detentions Division Personnel,
COVID‐19 continues to dominate the media headlines, conversations with family and friends, conversations at work, and certainly meetings and discussions about our work in the Detentions Division and the services we provide as law enforcement professionals. As indicated in previous communications, we continue to meet about this issue and its effects on us as people, its effects on us as staff, its affects on us as public safety service providers, its effects on the inmate population and our facility as a whole. Efforts are being made to stay out in front of this as much as possible and to enact reasonable and measured proactive decisions and appropriate responses to this developing situation.
Guidance on this issue is gained from our collaborative leadership team within the Weld County Sheriff’s Office and Weld County as an entity. I would encourage you all to take the time to read the attached news release by Weld County if you have not read it already.
More specifically for us in the Detentions Division, please read the attached memo from your Command Staff regarding our continued responses to COVID‐19 as it relates to jail operations and our unique role that we serve in the jail. It is not lost on me during times like this just how vital you are in providing effective public safety services for Weld County. Even amidst all of what is going on with this health and social issue… we have work to do, that nobody else will do, that is more important than what most people realize. Please know that we are right there with you, we know what the work you do means, and we thank you for being that part of our community that does the job no matter what.
Take the time to read these attachments, ask questions, and be informed. Additional communication will come out as necessary as this situation continues to develop. Stay safe, wash your hands, and make good choices.
Thanks everyone,
Lieutenant Matt Elbe Detentions Division Weld County Sheriff’s Office 2110 O Street Greeley, CO 80634 970‐400‐3817
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-4 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 14

melbe@weldgov.com

EXHIBIT A-15

2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-4 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 14

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
EX1H55I5BNITortAh -117t5h Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631 www.weldhealth.org

March 16, 2020

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:

Eric Aakko Public Information Officer (970) 400-2380; (970) 673-2893 (mobile)

Pandemic Health Emergency and Public Health Order Issued by Weld County

Weld County – By the order of Mark E. Wallace, MD, MPH, Executive Director of the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment, and the County Health Officer, a Pandemic Health Emergency and Public Health Order is issued. “The main reason for this declaration is we need to reduce the impact and spread of the COVID-19 virus in Weld County,” said Dr. Wallace. The declaration will also help protect high-risk populations like older adults, pregnant women, and people who are immunocompromised or with chronic health conditions. “This declaration will also help protect our Weld County work force and their families,” said Wallace.

The Public Health Order requires social distancing be enacted. Social distancing means people stay at least 6 feet away from each other, and all events of 10 people or more are cancelled. All events at the following locations are prohibited, regardless of the number of attendees: day-care centers, child-care centers, private schools (including pre-schools), private day schools, community recreation centers, ice rinks, and libraries. “Event” does not include places of employment. Restaurants may need to switch to limited seating or switch to drive-thru or take-out orders. This order is effective until April 8, 2020.

Other preventive actions for preventing influenza, the common cold, and COVID-19 include: • Clean and disinfect frequently touched objects with regular household cleaning products. • Frequently wash your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, especially after going to the bathroom and before eating; a hand sanitizer can help if hand washing is not available. • Cover your cough with your elbow or sneeze into a tissue, then throw the tissue in the trash. • Stay home if you are sick. If you work or go into the community sick, others may get sick. • Limit close contact with people and keep a distance of at least 6 feet.

The current treatment for most people who get COVID-19 is rest, recovery, and self-isolation at home. About 80% of people who become ill will recover on their own. The seriously ill may require hospitalization or other care.

For more information For general questions about COVID-19 in Colorado, call the state CO HELP line at 303-389-1687 or 1-877462-2911 or email at COHELP@RMPDC.org. For updated COVID-19 information, including the full declaration and Public Health Order visit: www.weldhealth.org.
###

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-4 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 14

EXHIBIT A-15

TO: Detentions Division Personnel FROM: Detentions Division Command Staff DATE: 03/16/20 SUBJECT: Continued COVID-19 Response

In an effort to continue communication about the Detention Division’s COVID-19 response as this situation evolves in our community, please see the below information regarding restrictions and changes in general practices that will be implemented as indicated below:

Visitation

- Effective 03/17/2020 there will no longer be personal visitation for inmates. This will be

in effect until further notice.

- Effective 03/17/2020 professional visitors will be more tightly restricted to include only

attorneys, members of law enforcement conducting legitimate law enforcement business

or professional visitors serving a legitimate purpose for an inmate’s court process

(competency evaluations, etc.).

o All allowed professional visitors will be strongly encouraged to use video

visitation.

 A specific tracking log of the units and the inmates professional visitors

visit must be kept.

o All other professional visitors will be restricted from the facility until further

notice.

o If there are questions about if a professional visitor can gain entrance into the jail,

please contact on on-duty Sergeant.

Inmate Management

- Effective 03/17/2020 at 0000hrs, all male arrestees will be moved to M-pod once the

booking process is complete for a transition period prior to moving to G/P. This is in an

effort to have more time to screen and determine potential cases of COVID-19. There is

not a set time frame inmates will be in M-pod prior to joining G/P and this will be

dependent on numbers. Inmates will be screened by medical prior to joining G/P from M-

pod.

- Effective 03/17/2020 at 0000hrs, all female arrestees will be moved to unit 207 once the

booking process is complete for a transition period prior to moving to G/P. This is in an

Southwest Substation 4209 WCR 24 1/2 Longmont, Colorado 80504 (720) 652-2415 Fax (720) 652-4217

Headquarters
1950 O Street Greeley, Colorado 80631
(970)356-4015 Fax (970)304-6467 Toll Free (800)436-9276 www.weldsheriff.com

Southeast Substation 2950 9th Street
Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 (303) 857-2465
Fax (303) 637-2422
Page | 1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-4 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 14

EXHIBIT A-15
effort to have more time to screen and determine potential cases of COVID-19. There is not a set time frame inmates will be in unit 207 prior to joining G/P and will be dependent on numbers. Inmates will be screened by medical prior to joining G/P from unit 207.
o Arrangements are being made to make this housing unit available for this purpose, please discuss details with your Sergeant or supervisor if you have questions.
- The isolation protocol is still in effect, if needed, that was disseminated last week. Decisions about inmates needing to be isolated is a medical decision and we will take direction from medical on this. o If you have questions about the isolation procedure or units to be used if need be, please direct those questions towards your Sergeant of supervisor.
Personnel Operations - Effective immediately AOT is canceled until further notice. Missed hours for these days will be discussed with the Sergeant group to ensure paychecks are not negatively impacted as much as possible. - Effective 03/17/2020 duty/housing unit assignments for Deputies will remain the same as much as possible until further notice. Take direction from your Sergeant on this, but these will be minimally rotated between staff. - Effective 03/17/2020 there will be no shift briefings until further notice. Your Sergeants will communicate with you what your duty station assignment is and you are expected to report directly to that spot for pass on from the Deputy you are relieving. Your Sergeants will communicate briefing type information through other modes of communication. - Effective 03/17/2020 all staff is asked to be mindful of where they go for lunch breaks and should strongly consider remaining at the North Jail Complex to minimize interaction in community settings. Plan on bringing a lunch, adding a meal tray from the kitchen to your pod count for yourself, going home if you can, etc. These actions are in line with the recent State and County actions released regarding how we access services in our community.

Southwest Substation 4209 WCR 24 1/2 Longmont, Colorado 80504 (720) 652-2415 Fax (720) 652-4217

Headquarters
1950 O Street Greeley, Colorado 80631
(970)356-4015 Fax (970)304-6467 Toll Free (800)436-9276 www.weldsheriff.com

Southeast Substation 2950 9th Street
Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 (303) 857-2465
Fax (303) 637-2422
Page | 2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-5 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8
EXHIBIT A-16
From: Cory Channell <cchannell@weldgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 4:15 PM To: DD Deputies <DDDeputies@co.weld.co.us> Subject: COVID‐19 confinement conditions ‐ Nongrievable issue Deputies in Unit 7 and M‐pod, please print this memo and post it in your housing unit. Thank you!!! Sergeant Cory Channell Detentions Division Weld County Sheriff’s Office 2110 O Street, Greeley, CO 80631 970‐400‐3925 cchannell@weldgov.com
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-5 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 8

EXHIBIT A-16

Detentions Division Security Memorandum

Issuing Authority: Topic: Effective:

WCSO Command Staff COVID-19 – Non-grievable issue March 17, 2020

NOTICE On 3/17/2020, new arrestees started being housed in specified housing units to reduce
the impact and spread of the COVID-19 Virus throughout the jail population. The duration that inmates could stay in these units range from 1-14 days.
The CDC is aggressively responding to the global outbreak of COVID-19 and is preparing for the potential of it being spread in the United States.
Command Staff at the Weld County Jail has implemented precautionary measures to help prevent/slow the spread of COVID-19 in the facility. This includes holding new arrestees in specified housing units until a final medical screening can be done prior to the inmate being moved to general population.
The confinement conditions associated with these precautionary measures cannot be grieved. Any grievances associated with these measures will be rejected.

Page | 1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-5 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 8
EXHIBIT A-17

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-5 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 8
As we receive more information about the spread of COVID‐19 (coronavirus), we want to follow up with some clarification regarding
EXHIBIT A-17 the Coronavirus Screening Tool. To clarify, our screening does not require medical staff to request an inmate be sent to the hospital
for a FIT (Fit for Jail Screening) just because they have a fever or respiratory complaints, alone.
Medical staff will only be requesting FITs if the inmate appears seriously ill. Otherwise, they will continue to follow the previously established screening guidelines.
Emergency warning signs associated with COVID‐19 indicating a need for FIT are as follows:

 Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath  Persistent pain or pressure in the chest  New confusion or inability to arouse  Bluish lips or face  Appears seriously ill
The medical staff have been instructed that unless the inmate is in obvious distress a provider will be called to authorize the FIT. This is imperative to ensure we do our part to lessen the strain on community resources.
Absent any of the above findings, our screening guidelines provide that if an inmate flags positive for Questions 2 (history of traveling to/from Europe or Asia), 3 (close contact with someone who's traveled to/from Europe or Asia), 4 (contact with confirmed coronavirus case), or 5 (fever, cough, shortness of breath, or other symptoms of lower respiratory illness), then the staff will place a mask on the inmate and request detention staff immediately escort them to a reverse isolation cell. If your facility does not have a reverse isolation cell the inmate should be placed in a cell by themselves as far away from the rest of the inmate population as possible.
Please let us know if you have any questions, or if any other point of clarification is needed. We appreciate you, and we are here for you!
Respectfully,
Cory
Cory D. Turco, BSN, RN, CCHP Regional Nurse Manager ‐ Arkansas / Colorado / Texas Cell 520‐331‐6089 Fax 405‐561‐5607 cturco@turnkeyhealthclinics.com

M

m

m

Visit our website HERE.
Confidential Notice: This email communication and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information for the use of the designated recipients named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of it or its contents is proh bited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-5 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 8
EXHIBIT A-18
Begin forwarded message: From: Dustin Owens <dowens@weldgov.com> Date: March 19, 2020 at 1:01:35 PM MDT To: Matthew Elbe <melbe@weldgov.com>, Stephanie Tornquist <stornquist@weldgov.com>, Jon Echols <jechols@turnkeyhealthclinics.com>, Donna Newman <dnewman@turnkeyhealthclinics.com>, "cturco@turnkeyhealthclinics.com" <cturco@turnkeyhealthclinics.com>, William Cooper <wcooper@turnkeyhealthclinics.com> Cc: Teresa Sipola <tsipola@weldgov.com>, "KLAURIE@TURNKEYHEALTHCLINICS.COM" <KLAURIE@TURNKEYHEALTHCLINICS.COM> Subject: COVID‐19 FIRST PATIENT
Hello Everyone, I am writing to let everyone know we isolated and tested our first patient. Test will be sent off today to quest. Patient presents with a temp of 99.9, non‐productive cough. This patient also has a significant past medical history with several comorbidities. We will be screening the entire housing unit the individual came out of in the next few minutes as well. Thank you, Dustin Owens, RN CCHP Health Services Administrator Weld County North Jail Complex 2110 O Street Greeley, CO 80631 Office: 970‐400‐3946 Cell: 402‐210‐8954 Main: 970‐356‐4015
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-5 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 8
EXHIBIT A-19
From: Matthew Turner Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 2:03 PM To: DD Sergeants <DDSergeants@co.weld.co.us> Subject: COVID 19 response
Team,
In response to the COVID 19 threat, we need to make a few operational changes immediately. Most of these changes revolve around the idea of social distancing. I realize that we cannot do this 100%.... but we should strive to do what we can. Please make sure that all of the below restrictions are enacted immediately.
Command Staff:  Command staff will limit interaction as much as possible. We do not want all of us to get sick if one of us gets sick.  If you need to speak with a member of command staff, use the phone or the radio.  The Lieutenants will begin to work on an alternating schedule. You will only have 1 LT on site at any time. The other LT will work from home. The LT working from home will respond to work if necessary when directed by the Division Captain.  Captain Turner will be limiting his time at the office as well, but will be available by cell phone, email, smoke signal, telepathy and Jedi meditation. Captain Turner will be working from home when not in the office.
Sergeants:  Sergeants should limit contact with each other as often as possible. Again, we do not want all of you to get sick if one of you gets sick and spreads it.  Operate out of separate offices if possible. If not, practice social distancing and use a 6‐foot gap when possible.  Sergeants should be moving throughout the facility checking on their shifts. Practice social distancing, but make sure that things are running properly.  Deputies MUST wash their hands before entering a unit for any reason.  Deputies MUST wash their hands when leaving a unit for any reason.  If you need to contact each other, use the phone or radio
Deputies:  Deputies should limit their movement throughout the facility when possible.  Practice social distancing when possible.  Deputies MUST wash their hands before entering a unit for any reason.
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-5 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 8
 Deputies MUST wash their hands when leaving a unit for any reason.
 If deputies need to communicate, use thEe pXhoHnIeBorITradAio -19
 Rovers should be, if possible, assigned to a specific side of the facility to limit their travel throughout the facility.
Inmates/Operations:  Inmate movement between units should be heavily restricted if not stopped period. o Inmates moved from a unit, taken to any area of the jail should only be taken with inmates from the same unit – DO NOT MIX UNITS DURING TRANSPORTS  This may not work for court transports but should be done if possible. o We do not have enough masks for inmates to have one. o Inmates taken to medical should only be moved with inmates from their unit. DO NOT MIX UNITS DURING MEDICAL TRANSPORTS  Recreation time (gyms) WILL NOT be conducted until further notice. o The need to clean after each gym to eliminate the chance of cross contamination puts too much strain on staff.  Inmates in the transition units should do hour outs in their groups according to the day they booked into jail. o Cleaning should be completed after each group  The deputy working in MO will be issued a mask, though it is not necessary o The mask does not stop COVID 19 o We have a limited number of masks.
Thanks,
Captain Matt Turner
Weld County Sheriff’s Office Detentions Division 970‐400‐2838 "Men wanted for hazardous journey. Small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in case of success." -Earnest Shackleton, 4 Burlington St
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-5 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 8
EXHIBIT A-20
From: Steven Reams Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 9:10 AM To: Todd Norris <TNorris@frederickco.gov>; adam.turk@greeleypd.com; armueller@eatonco.org; BGarcia@millikenco.gov; Brent Newbanks <bnewbanks@townofmead.org>; bphillips@townofjohnstown.com; Carl Blesch <cblesch@weldgov.com>; CDwyer@PlattevilleGov.org; charvey@lasalletown.com; Chris Caldwell <cwcaldwell@fbi.gov>; chris.krause@unco.edu; chris.schaefer@state.co.us; dan.volz@state.co.us; David Gottschalk (dgottschalk@kerseygov.com) <dgottschalk@kerseygov.com>; dennis.pumphrey@unco.edu; DMontgomery@firestoneco.gov; Donnie Patch <dpatch@weldgov.com>; eric.a.dreher@ice.dhs.gov; gary.eyer@state.co.us; Ian Whittington <ian.whittington@state.co.us>; Jay Hirokawa <jsh8541@aol.com>; Jeremy Black <jblack@townofgardencity.com>; jeff.french@state.co.us; jfryar@fortlupton.org; john.camper@state.co.us; kstewart@erieco.gov; mark.jones@greeleypd.com; mark.white@state.co.us; melissa.gallardo@state.co.us; mike.zeller@greeleypd.com; Michael Rourke <mrourke@weldgov.com>; MSkaggs@CityofDacono.com; psouthard@brightonco.gov; rbrandt@evanscolorado.gov; rklimek@windsorgov.com; Robb Miller <rmiller@weldgov.com>; Roy Rudisill <rrudisill@weldgov.com>; RStrang@TownofAult.org; Russell Reed <rreed@townofseverance.org>; tesandstedt@fbi.gov; Thomas Gates <Thomas.Gates@BNSF.com>; tmccoy@lochbuie.org; Thomas Walde <twalde@weldgov.com> Subject: closing of restaurants, bars etc Chiefs, As you well know, the Governor used his authority during a state of emergency to close various businesses in the state. I have been asked by many citizens (as I’m sure you have) about who can enforce said closures and what happens if someone doesn’t comply. It doesn’t take much research to know that local law enforcement can take action to cite/arrest persons/business owners that don’t comply with the closure order (class 1 misdemeanor). All that said, the Sheriff’s Office is not focusing on these types of enforcement actions and we don’t intend to due to the regular call volume that we are handling. In addition, if you do decide to interact with persons/businesses for these closures, please don’t transport anyone to the county jail on this type of charge as we want to maintain bed space for the folks that are truly in need of confinement. Hope you are all weathering the storm as best as possible! Sheriff Reams
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-6 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7
EXHIBIT A-21
From: Dustin Owens <dowens@weldgov.com> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 1:54 PM To: Matthew Elbe <melbe@weldgov.com>; Stephanie Tornquist <stornquist@weldgov.com>; Jon Echols <jechols@turnkeyhealthclinics.com>; Donna Newman <dnewman@turnkeyhealthclinics.com>; cturco@turnkeyhealthclinics.com; William Cooper <wcooper@turnkeyhealthclinics.com>; Flint Junod <fjunod@turnkeyhealthclinics.com>; Matthew Turner <mturner@weldgov.com> Cc: KLAURIE@TURNKEYHEALTHCLINICS.COM; Teresa Sipola <tsipola@weldgov.com>; Bryan Reichert <breichert@turnkeyhealthclinics.com> Subject: ISOLATION ‐ #2, #3 Hello Everyone, Patient Number 2 – [NAME REDACTED] 32 years old. Been in custody since 02/10/2020 He is being isolated based on temp. He is running 100.4 to 102.4. Flu test was negative. He is not exhibiting any other symptoms related to COVID or flu, however he is experiencing HTN, Tachycardia. C/O chest pain, “fast heart beat I cant slow down”, “feels really hot and my head is pounding”, reports mild nonproductive cough. Patient Number 3 – [NAME REDACTED] 27 years old. Been in custody since 12/10/2019 He is isolated based on temp. he was running 100.4. he is currently 98.4 Flu test was negative. C/O fever, cough, body aches and lethargy. All 3 patients are from different housing units. Thank you, Dustin Owens, RN CCHP Health Services Administrator Weld County North Jail Complex 2110 O Street Greeley, CO 80631 Office: 970‐400‐3946 Cell: 402‐210‐8954 Main: 970‐356‐4015
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-6 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 7
EXHIBIT A-22
From: Steven Reams Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 8:36 AM To: Todd Norris <TNorris@frederickco.gov>; adam.turk@greeleypd.com; armueller@eatonco.org; BGarcia@millikenco.gov; Brent Newbanks <bnewbanks@townofmead.org>; bphillips@townofjohnstown.com; Carl Blesch <cblesch@weldgov.com>; CDwyer@PlattevilleGov.org; charvey@lasalletown.com; Chris Caldwell <cwcaldwell@fbi.gov>; chris.krause@unco.edu; chris.schaefer@state.co.us; dan.volz@state.co.us; David Gottschalk (dgottschalk@kerseygov.com) <dgottschalk@kerseygov.com>; dennis.pumphrey@unco.edu; DMontgomery@firestoneco.gov; Donnie Patch <dpatch@weldgov.com>; eric.a.dreher@ice.dhs.gov; gary.eyer@state.co.us; Ian Whittington <ian.whittington@state.co.us>; Jay Hirokawa <jsh8541@aol.com>; Jeremy Black <jblack@townofgardencity.com>; jeff.french@state.co.us; jfryar@fortlupton.org; john.camper@state.co.us; kstewart@erieco.gov; mark.jones@greeleypd.com; mark.white@state.co.us; melissa.gallardo@state.co.us; mike.zeller@greeleypd.com; Michael Rourke <mrourke@weldgov.com>; MSkaggs@CityofDacono.com; psouthard@brightonco.gov; rbrandt@evanscolorado.gov; rklimek@windsorgov.com; Robb Miller <rmiller@weldgov.com>; Roy Rudisill <rrudisill@weldgov.com>; RStrang@TownofAult.org; Russell Reed <rreed@townofseverance.org>; tesandstedt@fbi.gov; Thomas Gates <Thomas.Gates@BNSF.com>; tmccoy@lochbuie.org; Thomas Walde <twalde@weldgov.com> Subject: RE: closing of restaurants, bars etc
Chiefs,
It appears pretty imminent that the Governor will be issuing a shelter in place order. There is some legal debate as to whether he truly has the authority to do that but regardless, I want to keep you all in the loop as best as possible. Just like the other orders, this will not be an enforcement effort from my folks and we still don’t have room for these types of charges in the jail.
As a situational awareness issue, we are in the midst of trying to get some test results on inmates and officers associated with the jail so that operation will likely become strained if we aren’t blessed with some really good luck. I hope you are all doing well and enjoying the snow storm distraction!
Reams
From: Steven Reams Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 9:10 AM To: Todd Norris <TNorris@frederickco.gov>; adam.turk@greeleypd.com; armueller@eatonco.org; BGarcia@millikenco.gov; Brent Newbanks <bnewbanks@townofmead.org>; bphillips@townofjohnstown.com; Carl Blesch <cblesch@weldgov.com>; CDwyer@PlattevilleGov.org; charvey@lasalletown.com; Chris Caldwell <cwcaldwell@fbi.gov>; chris.krause@unco.edu; chris.schaefer@state.co.us; dan.volz@state.co.us; David Gottschalk (dgottschalk@kerseygov.com) <dgottschalk@kerseygov.com>; dennis.pumphrey@unco.edu; DMontgomery@firestoneco.gov; Donnie Patch <dpatch@weldgov.com>; eric.a.dreher@ice.dhs.gov; gary.eyer@state.co.us; Ian Whittington <ian.whittington@state.co.us>; Jay Hirokawa <jsh8541@aol.com>; Jeremy Black <jblack@townofgardencity.com>; jeff.french@state.co.us; jfryar@fortlupton.org; john.camper@state.co.us;
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-6 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 7

kstewart@erieco.gov; mark.jones@greeleypd.com; mark.white@state.co.us; melissa.gallardo@state.co.us;

mike.zeller@greeleypd.com; psouthard@brightonco.gov;

rMbriachnadet@l Reovuarnksec<omlorrEaoduXork.Hgeo@vIB;wrekIllTdimgoeAvk.@c-o2wm2in>d; sMoSrgkoavg.gcso@mC;iRtyoobfbDaMcoillneor.com;

<rmiller@weldgov.com>; Roy Rudisill <rrudisill@weldgov.com>; RStrang@TownofAult.org; Russell Reed

<rreed@townofseverance.org>; tesandstedt@fbi.gov; Thomas Gates <Thomas.Gates@BNSF.com>;

tmccoy@lochbuie.org; Thomas Walde <twalde@weldgov.com>

Subject: closing of restaurants, bars etc

Chiefs,

As you well know, the Governor used his authority during a state of emergency to close various businesses in the state. I have been asked by many citizens (as I’m sure you have) about who can enforce said closures and what happens if someone doesn’t comply. It doesn’t take much research to know that local law enforcement can take action to cite/arrest persons/business owners that don’t comply with the closure order (class 1 misdemeanor).

All that said, the Sheriff’s Office is not focusing on these types of enforcement actions and we don’t intend to due to the regular call volume that we are handling. In addition, if you do decide to interact with persons/businesses for these closures, please don’t transport anyone to the county jail on this type of charge as we want to maintain bed space for the folks that are truly in need of confinement.

Hope you are all weathering the storm as best as possible!

Sheriff Reams

2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-6 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 7
EXHIBIT A-23
From: Sam Kaneta III <skaneta@weldgov.com> Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2020 3:02 PM To: PD Deputies <PDDeputies@co.weld.co.us>; DD Deputies <DDDeputies@co.weld.co.us> Subject: Possible exposure point Ladies and Gentlemen,
During this unusual time, I want to thank you all for your patience and understanding. There are many challenges each day, and as always, you pull together and drive on like the true professionals you are. Thank you and keep up the tremendous job you’re doing.
While your POST academy has been postponed, please understand that we hope to continue your academy at the earliest opportunity. We must wait on information and decisions from the State, but our intent is to continue to provide that service to you. *** A possible exposure point has happened with personnel associated with the academy. Because of that, I urge you to be vigilant for any symptoms such as fever, cough and shortness of breath. Here is a link to the CDC website specific to this pandemic.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019‐ncov/symptoms‐testing/symptoms.html ***If you are experiencing these symptoms, please report such to your supervisor so appropriate steps can be taken. If you have the ability, please check your temperature before coming in to work. A fever of 100.4, and associated symptoms require certain protocols. Please take care of yourself, each other and stay safe.
Sam Kaneta III Weld County Sheriff’s Office 1950 O Street Greeley, CO 80631 970‐400‐2877
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-6 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 7
EXHIBIT A-24
From: Sam Kaneta III <skaneta@weldgov.com> Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2020 3:02 PM To: PD Deputies <PDDeputies@co.weld.co.us>; DD Deputies <DDDeputies@co.weld.co.us> Subject: Possible exposure point Ladies and Gentlemen,
During this unusual time, I want to thank you all for your patience and understanding. There are many challenges each day, and as always, you pull together and drive on like the true professionals you are. Thank you and keep up the tremendous job you’re doing.
While your POST academy has been postponed, please understand that we hope to continue your academy at the earliest opportunity. We must wait on information and decisions from the State, but our intent is to continue to provide that service to you. *** A possible exposure point has happened with personnel associated with the academy. Because of that, I urge you to be vigilant for any symptoms such as fever, cough and shortness of breath. Here is a link to the CDC website specific to this pandemic.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019‐ncov/symptoms‐testing/symptoms.html ***If you are experiencing these symptoms, please report such to your supervisor so appropriate steps can be taken. If you have the ability, please check your temperature before coming in to work. A fever of 100.4, and associated symptoms require certain protocols. Please take care of yourself, each other and stay safe.
Sam Kaneta III Weld County Sheriff’s Office 1950 O Street Greeley, CO 80631 970‐400‐2877
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-6 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 7
EXHIBIT A-25
From: Matthew Elbe <melbe@weldgov.com> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 1:49 PM To: DD Sergeants <DDSergeants@co.weld.co.us>; Stephanie Tornquist <stornquist@weldgov.com> Subject: Social Distancing
All,
We are in weird times and I know you probably don’t want to read anything more about Corona Virus/COVID‐19/social distancing/grocery stores being out of toilet paper/favorite restaurants being shutdown/etc. BUT…
You are required to do your part to keep yourself healthy, your peers healthy, your staff healthy, and the inmate population healthy. That is, in part, the essence of our operational objective “…hold prisoners in a safe, humane, wholesome environment…”, and we cannot do this unless we first ensure OUR environment is safe, humane, and wholesome.
So with that, I need you all to distance yourself as much as possible from your peers while at work – physically. During this time, we have to consider the necessity of being in each other’s offices to do our daily business. I know how social we all are and what great ideas, solutions and plans come from conversations had in offices with each other as a group – but we have to be smart about this. If you as a Sergeant group get wiped out from this on a shift or a side of the week, the void left will be challenging for us to fill. We already have staff that are affected by this and we have to think of the need to be around each other in every interaction we want to have right now. Please know that I am somewhat of the belief that if someone is going to get this, they are going to get it. BUT, that does not mean we are void of responsibility to do what we can to not get it or spread it to others.
I personally have been working on this. I have rescheduled all of meetings to be done via Skype, I hold all my meetings with the Captain while sitting in a chair in his doorway, and have set up 7 of my peers and subordinates on Skype to be able to do video conference in place of physically meeting with each other.
Guys and Ladies, we need your help to stay healthy. Keep your distance from your peers, use phone, use email, use Skype when you can, shout between offices, sit in doorways, work from 2East (yes 2 East), separate yourself from your peer in the same office for the time being, clean your work area, clean someone else’s work area if you work there, do everything you can to stay healthy, to keep your family healthy, to keep your peers healthy, to keep your staff healthy and to keep the inmate population healthy.
I trust that you all will come up with individual plans to make this happen, but know that I will question you, if necessary, about the necessity of face to face meetings or being in close proximity to each other in order to do my part in keeping us healthy. If Skype is easier for you to communicate with me, Lt. Roles, or the Captain – the IM component is great and easier than email – we are happy to do this. To access Skype go to the start menu of your computer, find Skype for Business, sign in with your email address that ends in .co.weld.co.us and you’re in. Find contacts, add them to your
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-6 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 7

favorites or other contact list by right clicking on the name when you search for it and you can begin to message

effortlessly.

EXHIBIT A-25

We need all of you in the roles you have been selected for during these tough times and your staff need you as well. Make good choices, please. And let me know if I can help or if you have ideas to help distance ourselves and still get the job done. Thanks all,

Lieutenant Matt Elbe Detentions Division Weld County Sheriff’s Office 2110 O Street Greeley, CO 80634 970‐400‐3817 melbe@weldgov.com

2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-7 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 13
EXHIBIT A-26
From: Matthew Elbe Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 11:50 AM To: Cory Turco <cturco@turnkeyhealthclinics.com> Subject: RE: COVID‐19 Surgical Masks Mr. Turco, Please add an order of 500 masks for Weld County. I appreciate you thinking of us for this order and we will now have some for use if needed. Thanks again, Lieutenant Matt Elbe Detentions Division Weld County Sheriff’s Office 2110 O Street Greeley, CO 80634 970‐400‐3817 melbe@weldgov.com
From: Cory Turco <cturco@turnkeyhealthclinics.com> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 11:29 AM
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-7 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 13
EXHIBIT A-26

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-7 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 13
EXHIBIT A-27
From: Stephanie Tornquist <stornquist@weldgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 8:21 AM To: DD Sergeants <DDSergeants@co.weld.co.us>; Hope Subia <hsubia@weldgov.com> Subject: Temporary Procedure for Classification Interviews Importance: High Good Morning, Sergeants and Hope: We are doing all we can in Inmate Services to temporarily change our processes to limit movement and limit the potential of exposure to COVID 19. Attached is the procedure we have established that will go into effect today. Please let the Deputies know we are moving forward and what to expect with this. If you have questions or concerns, please let me know. I appreciate the patience as we start this as we may have some kinks to smooth over. Thank you. Stephanie Tornquist MS, LPC Director of Inmate Services Weld County Detention Facility (970) 400-3937
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-7 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 13
EXHIBIT A-27
Temporary Procedure for Classification Interviews:
1. Each Classification Specialist will create a list of those Inmates they need to meet with to include: a. Name (last name, first name) b. Name Number c. Location
2. Classification staff will coordinate with one another on when they will be doing interviews as there are a limited number of visiting kiosks in the pods (most have 2 kiosks).
3. An email will be sent to the Pod Deputy and to BookingStaff@co.weld.co.us to include the list of individuals and what time they will begin.
4. Classifications will contact the Pod to ensure the Deputy received the list. 5. The Pod Deputy will be responsible for getting the Inmates to the visiting kiosk and ensuring the
area is cleaned every time a new Inmate utilizes it. 6. The Classifications Specialist will check in with the front desk to coordinate the following:
a. Determine the best visiting kiosk to utilize in the lobby. This should include the following considerations: i. Strategically choose one that will provide for privacy. ii. Maintain appropriate distance between one another at the kiosks.
b. The approximate length of time needed as this time can be set. c. Work with the front desk as to when you need to switch pods. d. Inform the front desk when finished. 7. Prior to starting, the Classification Specialist will clean the kiosk they are using to complete the interviews and will clean it once completed.

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-7 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 13
EXHIBIT A-28
From: Matthew Turner Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 8:59 AM To: DD Sergeants <DDSergeants@co.weld.co.us> Subject: READ THIS Sgts, I realize that many of us hate what is happening in our country right now. I realize that many of us don’t want to participate in the fear that is motivating many people in our country right now. But I also realize that there is a real threat. As of this morning:
COLORADO:
 912 cases  84 hospitalized  35 counties  7,701 people tested  11 deaths  7 outbreaks at residential and non‐hospital health care facilities https://covid19.colorado.gov/case‐data
Globally:
 440,326 cases  19,752 deaths  THIS MORNING India’s Prime Minister imposed a nationwide lockdown for the next 21 days starting this
morning….. effecting 1.3 BILLION people. The lockdown is so great that they do not know if they will be able to get food or water to people.
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-7 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 13
Sorry for the long email but this needs to get reinEfoXrcHedI…B. IWTe Aare-2in8weird times and I know you probably don’t want
to read anything more about Corona Virus/COVID‐19/social distancing/grocery stores being out of toilet paper/favorite restaurants being shutdown/etc. BUT…
You are required to lead and do your part to keep yourself healthy, your peers healthy, and your staff healthy. Our operational objective is to “provide effective law enforcement services with honor and integrity”. We cannot be effective if we are sick and out of action. As leaders, we must ensure our environment is as safe and wholesome as possible.
So with that, I need you all to distance yourself as much as possible from your peers while at work – physically. During this time, we must consider the necessity of being in each other’s offices to do our daily business. I know how social we all are and what great ideas, solutions and plans come from office conversations – but we must be smart about this. If you as a Sergeant group get wiped out from this on a shift or a side of the week, the void left will be challenging to fill. We already have staff that are affected by this and we must think of the need to be around each other in every interaction we want to have right now. I hope this virus doesn’t get worse, but it probably will before things get better. We are responsible to do what we can to not get it or spread it to others.
Your Lieutenants and I have personally worked on this. We have started using Skype for Business to minimize face to face interactions. All employees have access to Skype. I encourage you when time allows to find a training video online and then use it to develop proficiency. Encourage your deputies to do the same. Some computers don’t have video, but the IM and audio are still available, and it’s easier than email. This is useful when a group meeting is needed. Skype is even available on your iPhone. If Skype is easier for you to communicate with me or your Lieutenants – the IM component is great and easier than email – we are happy to do this (my skype is currently active on my desktop). To access Skype, go to the start menu of your computer, find Skype for Business, sign in with your email address that ends in .co.weld.co.us and you’re in. Find contacts, add them to your favorites or other contact list by right clicking on the name when you search for it and you can begin to message effortlessly.
We need your help to stay healthy. Keep your distance from your peers, use phone, use email, use Skype when you can, shout between offices, sit in doorways, separate yourself from your peer in the same office for the time being, clean your work area, clean someone else’s work area if you work there, do everything you can to stay healthy, to keep your family healthy, to keep your peers healthy, and to keep your staff healthy.
I trust that you all will come up with individual plans to make this happen, but know that I will question you, if necessary, about the necessity of face to face meetings or being in close proximity to each other in order to do my part in keeping us healthy. I expect you to do the same with your deputies and all employees.
I understand that our job requires us and our deputies to have contact with inmates and the public – I understand, but let’s be smart about it. Are we keeping safe distances? Do we really need to talk to this person inside a cell, can they be asked to come out to the GP area?
We need all of you in the roles you have been selected for during these tough times and your staff need you as well. Make good choices, please. And let me know if I can help or if you have ideas to help distance ourselves and still get the job done.
This threat is not over – we are in the middle of the battle right now and we need to make sure that we are not getting complacent.
You have all done so well, and reacted amazingly to this threat and we are able to say that there is no outbreak in our facility. If we get complacent, this will change quickly.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-7 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 13

Thanks, take care, and wash your hands.
Captain Matt Turner
Weld County Sheriff’s Office Detentions Division 970‐400‐2838

EXHIBIT A-28

"Men wanted for hazardous journey. Small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in case of success."

-Earnest Shackleton, 4 Burlington St

3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-7 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 13
EXHIBIT A-29
From: Matthew Turner Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 4:50 PM To: DD Deputies <DDDeputies@co.weld.co.us>; DD Sergeants <DDSergeants@co.weld.co.us>; Booking Supervisors <BookingSupervisors@co.weld.co.us>; Booking Staff <BookingStaff@co.weld.co.us>; DD Inmate Services <DDinmateservices@co.weld.co.us>; DD Court Services <DDCourtServices@co.weld.co.us>; Dustin Owens <dowens@weldgov.com> Subject: POSSIBLE EXPOSURE Team, We are experiencing a very odd time, and learning how to conduct ourselves in relation to COVID 19 is a heavily debated subject. People have become polarized in their reactions; some are terrified, buying toilet paper by the truck load. Others are not at all worried, and think that life can continue as if nothing is happening. I am asking that we try to find a middle ground on this topic. Because of where we work and what we do, we need to be careful and cautious while remaining optimistic that we will see the end of this. That said, one of our employees in the jail has tested positive for COVID 19. I am going to protect this person’s identity, and I ask that all of you do the same. It doesn’t matter what shift they worked, or where they were assigned. What matters is that we all work in close proximity to each other; we need to be smart about this. Today I have noticed that people are still hanging out in groups, and doing activities that put them in close proximity to each other. As of this morning, in Colorado there were 912 cases and 11 deaths from COVID 19. Other places in the world have been hit harder. This morning India locked down 1.3 Billion people in a nationwide quarantine. I don’t want that to happen to our country. Please watch yourself and those around you for symptoms of COVID 19. Even if you don’t have symptoms, you need to distance yourself from others as much as possible. Please refer to the link below for more information on the symptoms associated with this epidemic. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019‐ncov/symptoms‐testing/symptoms.html
***If you are experiencing these symptoms, please report such to your supervisor so appropriate steps can be taken. If you have the ability, please check your temperature before coming in to work. A fever of 100.4, and associated symptoms require certain protocols. Please take care of yourself, each other and stay safe.
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-7 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 13

Captain Matt Turner
Weld County Sheriff’s Office Detentions Division 970‐400‐2838

EXHIBIT A-29

"Men wanted for hazardous journey. Small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in case of success."

-Earnest Shackleton, 4 Burlington St

2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-7 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 13
EXHIBIT A-30
From: Stephanie Tornquist <stornquist@weldgov.com> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 11:38 AM To: _Template User SO Detentions; Aaron Yochim <ayochim@weldgov.com>; Adam Dougherty <adougherty@weldgov.com>; Adam Geoffroy <ageoffroy@weldgov.com>; Adam Krabbenhoft <akrabbenhoft@weldgov.com>; Adam Mickiewicz <amickiewicz@weldgov.com>; Adam Petty <apetty@weldgov.com>; Adam Van Eaton <avaneaton@weldgov.com>; AJ Hastings <ahastings@weldgov.com>; Alex Mendibles <amendibles@weldgov.com>; Alexander Hunter <ahunter@weldgov.com>; Alexis Hein‐Nutz <aheinnutz@weldgov.com>; Alexis Murillo <amurillo@weldgov.com>; Amy Anderson <aanderson@weldgov.com>; Andrew Cole <acole@weldgov.com>; Andrew Kenny <akenny@weldgov.com>; Andrew Lindell <alindell@weldgov.com>; Andrew Santos <asantos@weldgov.com>; Andrew Villalobos <avillalobos@weldgov.com>; Andrew Wilson <awilson@weldgov.com>; Anna Erickson <aerickson@weldgov.com>; Anson Bennett <abennett@weldgov.com>; Anthony Liges <aliges@weldgov.com>; Anthony Smith <amsmith@weldgov.com>; Antonio Diaz <adiaz@weldgov.com>; Austin Hood <ahood@weldgov.com>; Austin Iverson <aiverson@weldgov.com>; Austin Thompson <athompson@weldgov.com>; Ayshia Clark‐Deleeuw <aclarkdeleeuw@weldgov.com>; Barbie Wood <bwood@weldgov.com>; Benjamin Johnson <bjohnson@weldgov.com>; Brandi Bendele <bbendele@weldgov.com>; Brandi Smith <bsmith@weldgov.com>; Breanna Thompson <bthompson@weldgov.com>; Brian Bartnik <bbartnik@weldgov.com>; Broc Sorrells <bsorrells@weldgov.com>; Brooke Norris <bnorris@weldgov.com>; Bruce Sunada <bsunada@weldgov.com>; Cameron Caraballo <ccaraballo@weldgov.com>; Carla Escobar <cescobar@weldgov.com>; Cary Overholt <coverholt@weldgov.com>; Cesar Polanco <cpolanco@weldgov.com>; Chad Benoit <cbenoit@weldgov.com>; Charles Eggers <ceggers@weldgov.com>; Chris Meyer <cmeyer@weldgov.com>; Christian Nix <cnix@weldgov.com>; Christina Hebbeler <chebbeler@weldgov.com>; Christopher Connor <cconnor@weldgov.com>; Christopher Dalzell <cdalzell@weldgov.com>; Christopher Kimball <ckimball@weldgov.com>; Christopher Morehouse <cmorehouse@weldgov.com>; Christopher Schroeder <cschroeder@weldgov.com>; Christopher Soper <csoper@weldgov.com>; Christopher Spraker <cspraker@weldgov.com>; Cody Kollath <ckollath@weldgov.com>; Collin Schaefer <cschaefer@weldgov.com>; Connor Stecker <cstecker@weldgov.com>; Cory Channell <cchannell@weldgov.com>; Cory Fleming <cfleming@weldgov.com>; Crystal Moore <cmoore@co.weld.co.us>; Dana Patrick <dpatrick@weldgov.com>; Daniel Fuentes <dfuentes@weldgov.com>; Daniel Stepp <dstepp@weldgov.com>; Daniel Wetsch <dwetsch@weldgov.com>; Darrick Adair <dadair@weldgov.com>; David Badley <dbadley@weldgov.com>; David Carrillo <dcarrillo@weldgov.com>; David Clarke <dclarke@weldgov.com>; David Grijalva <dgrijalva@weldgov.com>; David McFarlane <dmcfarlane@weldgov.com>; David Vogl <dvogl@weldgov.com>; Deena Martinez <dmartinez@weldgov.com>; Derek Crawford <dcrawford@weldgov.com>; Derek Knott <dknott@weldgov.com>; Desarae Burson <dburson@weldgov.com>; Devin Danforth <ddanforth@weldgov.com>; Donnie Patch <dpatch@weldgov.com>; Dustin Petzold <dpetzold@weldgov.com>; Emerson McDaniel <emcdaniel@weldgov.com>; Eric Vanloo <evanloo@weldgov.com>; Ericka Juarez‐Medill <ejuarez‐ medill@weldgov.com>; Everardo Bretado Pena <ebretado@co.weld.co.us>; Faustina Mueller <fmueller@weldgov.com>; Gabriel Gallegos <ggallegos@weldgov.com>; Gabriel Gatzke <ggatzke@weldgov.com>; Gerald Cornwell Jr. <gcornwell@weldgov.com>; Gordon Sallee Jr. <gsallee@weldgov.com>; Grant Hawkins <ghawkins@weldgov.com>; Gregory Schneider <gschneider@weldgov.com>; Gretchen Meyers <gmeyers@weldgov.com>; Guadalupe Garza <ggarza@weldgov.com>; Hailey Thomas <hthomas@weldgov.com>; Holly
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-7 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 13
Myers <ghmyers@weldgov.com>; Hunter Aslin <haslin@weldgov.com>; Isabelle Himmel <ihimmel@weldgov.com>; Jack
LBeocwhemrsan<j<bjolewcehrms@anw@ewldeglodvg.ocvo.mco>m; J>a;mJaecsoRbidBdullele<Erj<rXijdbduHllele@IrB@wIewTldelgdAogvo-.cv3o.c0mom>;>J;aJmaceosbWLoaonider<j<wjloaondie@r@wweledlgdogvo.vc.ocmom>;>J;aJraekdob
Higgins <jhiggins@weldgov.com>; Jarod Marquardt <jmarquardt@weldgov.com>; Jarrod Bean <jbean@weldgov.com>; Jason Andrews <jandrews@weldgov.com>; Jason Hillyer <jhillyer@weldgov.com>; Jason Howe <jhowe@weldgov.com>; Jason Piacenza <jpiacenza@weldgov.com>; Jasun Thompson <jthompson@weldgov.com>; Jeff Carr <jcarr@weldgov.com>; Jeff Dobson <jdobson@weldgov.com>; Jeffrey Falconburg <jfalconburg@weldgov.com>; Jeffrey Henry <jhenry@weldgov.com>; Jeffrey Ramos <jramos@weldgov.com>; Jeffrey Wilson <jwilson@weldgov.com>; Jennifer Lenderink <jlenderink@weldgov.com>; Jeramy Weakland <jweakland@weldgov.com>; Jeremy Hettinger <jhettinger@weldgov.com>; Jerry Aguirre <jaguirre@weldgov.com>; Jerry Aguirre Jr. <jaaguirre@weldgov.com>; Jerry Helgeson <jhelgeson@weldgov.com>; Jerry Rudolph III <jrudolph@weldgov.com>; Jesse Briggs <jbriggs@weldgov.com>; Jessica St Blanc <jstblanc@weldgov.com>; Jessica Van Sice <jvansice@weldgov.com>; John Panas <jpanas@weldgov.com>; John Tucker <jtucker@weldgov.com>; John Wingstrom <jwingstrom@weldgov.com>; Johnathon Pallesen <jpallesen@weldgov.com>; Jonathan Lanman <jlanman@weldgov.com>; Jonathan Rodriguez <jrodriguez@weldgov.com>; Jose Medina <jmedina@weldgov.com>; Joseph Emery <jemery@weldgov.com>; Joseph Howard <jchoward@weldgov.com>; Joseph Jacuk <jjacuk@weldgov.com>; Joseph Koppes <jkoppes@weldgov.com>; Joseph Martinez <jgmartinez@weldgov.com>; Joseph Martinez Jr. <jamartinez@weldgov.com>; Joseph Miller <jmiller@weldgov.com>; Joseph Moylan <jmoylan@weldgov.com>; Joshua Constantine <jconstantine@weldgov.com>; Joshua Hornback <jhornback@weldgov.com>; Joshua Kiburz <jkiburz@weldgov.com>; Joshua Todd <jtodd@weldgov.com>; Julio Garcia <jgarcia@weldgov.com>; Justin Freitas <jfreitas@weldgov.com>; Justin Mann <jmann@weldgov.com>; Justin Riley <jriley@weldgov.com>; Kacey Van Kempen <kvankempen@weldgov.com>; Kacper Barteczka <kbarteczka@weldgov.com>; Kale Mayfield <kmayfield@weldgov.com>; Katherine Hinkle <khinkle@weldgov.com>; Kendra Betz <kbetz@weldgov.com>; Kenneth Leach <kleach@weldgov.com>; Kenneth Welch <kwelch@weldgov.com>; Kent Long <klong@weldgov.com>; Kimberly Hawes <khawes@weldgov.com>; Kyle Keiser <kkeiser@weldgov.com>; Kyle Taylor <ktaylor@weldgov.com>; Lance Stuht <lstuht@weldgov.com>; Landon Sauer <lsauer@weldgov.com>; Larry Bol III <lbol@weldgov.com>; Larry Cozad <lcozad@weldgov.com>; Lauren Ruvalcaba <lruvalcaba@weldgov.com>; Leon De La Fuente III <ldelafuente@weldgov.com>; Leslie Kinner <lkinner@weldgov.com>; Linda Galovics <lgalovics@weldgov.com>; Lissette Negron <lnegron@weldgov.com>; Makayla McDaniel <mmcdaniel@weldgov.com>; Marc Leschinski <mleschinski@weldgov.com>; Marcus Morgenstern <mmorgenstern@weldgov.com>; Marcus Valencia <mvalencia@weldgov.com>; Marcy Roles‐Foos <mroles@weldgov.com>; Mariah Marquez <mmarquez@weldgov.com>; Mark Anthony Giannuzzi Jr. <mgiannuzzi@weldgov.com>; Mark Pollard <mpollard@weldgov.com>; Markale Jones <majones@weldgov.com>; Mary Burton <mburton@weldgov.com>; Matt Tippetts <mtippetts@weldgov.com>; Matthew Elbe <melbe@weldgov.com>; Matthew Jones <msjones@weldgov.com>; Matthew O'Brien <mobrien@weldgov.com>; Matthew Sargent <msargent@weldgov.com>; Matthew Smith <msmith@weldgov.com>; Matthew Turner <mturner@weldgov.com>; Megan Welch <mlwelch@weldgov.com>; Michael Beaman <mbeaman@weldgov.com>; Michael Papini <mpapini@weldgov.com>; Michael Recor <mrecor@weldgov.com>; Michael Ryan <mryan@weldgov.com>; Michael Shervo <mshervo@weldgov.com>; Michael Thompson <mthompson@weldgov.com>; Mike Fank <mfank@weldgov.com>; Mindy Lunsford <mlunsford@weldgov.com>; Nallely Palma Corral <ncorral@weldgov.com>; Nancy McAnich <nmcanich@weldgov.com>; Nathan Burke <nburke@weldgov.com>; Nathan Gudenkauf <ngudenkauf@weldgov.com>; Nathan Kafka <nkafka@weldgov.com>; Nicholas Ayers <nayers@weldgov.com>; Nicholas Cole <ncole@weldgov.com>; Nicholas Herrington <nherrington@weldgov.com>; Nicolas Thompson <nthompson@weldgov.com>; Noe Summers <nsummers@weldgov.com>; Norma Rodriguez <nrodriguez@weldgov.com>; Oran Kobobel <okobobel@weldgov.com>; Oshanette Lewis <olewis@weldgov.com>; Patricia Castle <pcastle@weldgov.com>; Philip Jeffries <pjeffries@weldgov.com>; Philip Oberg <poberg@weldgov.com>; Randolph Culpepper <rculpepper@weldgov.com>; Randy Carter <rcarter@weldgov.com>; Randy Medill <rmedill@weldgov.com>; Raymond Billington <rbillington@weldgov.com>; Rebekah Goolsby <rgoolsby@weldgov.com>; Ricardo Melendez <rmelendez@weldgov.com>; Richard Merideth <rmerideth@weldgov.com>; Richard Wayman <rwayman@weldgov.com>; Robert HemPhill <rhemphill@weldgov.com>; Rodney Miller <ramiller@weldgov.com>; Ross Hartenbower <rhartenbower@weldgov.com>; Roxanne Brauchler <rbrauchler@weldgov.com>; Roy Sweatt <rsweatt@weldgov.com>; Ryan Baer <rbaer@weldgov.com>; Ryan Evans <revans@weldgov.com>; Sam Kaneta III <skaneta@weldgov.com>; Sarah Saxe <ssaxe@weldgov.com>; Savannah Coble
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-7 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 13

<scoble@weldgov.com>; Scott Dill <sbdill@weldgov.com>; Sean Boroviak <sboroviak@weldgov.com>; Sean Wood

<<ssmrowbionosodn@@wweledldgogov.vc.ocomm>;>S; eSahnearrMi LauccGasre<gsolurc<assm@EawXcgerHldeggIooBrv@.IcTocom.Aw>;e-Sld3O.c0ToE.SuTs;>S; tSehpahreonn

Robinson Fisher <sfisher@weldgov.com>;

Sterling Lima <slima@weldgov.com>; Steven Jaramillo <sjaramillo@weldgov.com>; Steven Rice <srice@weldgov.com>;

Tanya Fagan <tfagan@weldgov.com>; Thomas Davies <tdavies@weldgov.com>; Thomas Gray <tgray@weldgov.com>;

Thomas Jacksha <tjacksha@weldgov.com>; Thomas Richard <trichard@weldgov.com>; Tina Papachek

<tpapachek@weldgov.com>; Tracy Wilson <twilson@weldgov.com>; Travis Jones <txjones@weldgov.com>; Travis Ward

<tward@weldgov.com>; Trent Wozniak <twozniak@weldgov.com>; Trevor Alm <talm@weldgov.com>; Van Duvall

<vduvall@weldgov.com>; Vincent Schaffer <vschaffer@weldgov.com>; William Hodge <whodge@weldgov.com>;

William Jenneiahn <wjenneiahn@weldgov.com>; William Lomax <wlomax@weldgov.com>; William Townsend

<wtownsend@weldgov.com>; Zachary Reeves <zreeves@weldgov.com>; Zachery Poulsen <zpoulsen@weldgov.com>;

Zebulon Hernandez <zhernandez@weldgov.com>; Zechariah Archer <zarcher@weldgov.com>

Cc: Daisy Romero <dromero@weldgov.com>; Stephen Amaya <samaya@weldgov.com>; Lea Burden

<lburden@weldgov.com>; Brandon Williams <bwilliams@weldgov.com>

Subject: Temporary Procedure for Library Books

Good Morning, Everyone:

With the objective of limiting exposure of COVID-19 while providing library books to Inmates, we have a new temporary procedure that will be effective today. Steve and Daisy are working on getting books prepared for delivery. We are hoping to have books delivered today or tomorrow at the latest. Thank you for all of your help.

Stay healthy and safe!

Stephanie Tornquist MS, LPC Director of Inmate Services Weld County Detention Facility (970) 400-3937

3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-7 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 13
EXHIBIT A-30
Date: March 26th, 2020 To: Weld County Sheriff’s Office – North Jail Complex From: Stephanie Tornquist
For the purpose of limiting exposure to COVID 19, the following is a temporary procedure created to continue to allow for Inmates to have access to library books.
1. Program Specialists will provide an assortment of books to each housing unit by placing them outside the unit door each Thursday after 1pm.
2. Deputies will need to collect these books from Inmates and bag all of these in a sealed black garbage bag. The bag will then be placed outside the unit door by 10am on Thursdays.
3. Program Specialist will then pick these up in the morning by 11am. 4. The books picked up from the units by Program Specialists will be placed on a cart. 5. Program Specialists will contact the on-duty Sergeant to assign a SOG Deputy to take the
books to be sanitized in the Armory. 6. The SOG Deputy will place the books into the sanitizer and return two hours later. These
books will then be placed into a new black bag. 7. The sanitized books will be placed outside the 2E Library door for the Program
Specialists.

Southwest Substation 4209 WCR 24 1/2 Longmont, Colorado 80504 (720) 652‐2415 Fax (720) 652‐4217

Headquarters
1950 O Street Greeley, Colorado 80631
(970)356‐4015 Fax (970)304‐6467 Toll Free (800)436‐9276 www.weldsheriff.com

Southeast Substation 2950 9th Street
Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 (303) 857‐2465
Fax (303) 637‐2422
Page | 1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-8 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 14
EXHIBIT A-31
From: Matthew Turner Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 8:38 AM To: DD Sergeants <DDSergeants@co.weld.co.us> Subject: Deputy Sick Call Team, If a deputy calls in sick, we need to ask the following questions until this pandemic is over.
1. Are you being quarantined a. What date will you be released from quarantine
2. Are you being tested for COVID 19? a. Advise the deputy to update you on the results b. When you get the results send the information up the chain of command. This represents a risk to the safety and security of the facility and we need to know this information. c. Do not transmit these results through the DD Sergeant group and do not transmit this information to the deputies or other staff.
This information is necessary for you to know how to plan for staffing, and necessary for us as a group to plan for additional measures in the case that we have an outbreak of COVID 19 here in the jail. Thanks,
Captain Matt Turner
Weld County Sheriff’s Office Detentions Division 970‐400‐2838 "Men wanted for hazardous journey. Small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in case of success." -Earnest Shackleton, 4 Burlington St
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-8 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 14
EXHIBIT A-32
From: Human Resources <humanresources@CO.WELD.CO.US> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 4:47 PM To: ALLWELD@LISTSERV.CO.WELD.CO.US Subject: Self‐Isolation Guidelines
Hello Weld County Employees, Attached are the Self-isolation guidelines for your reference when self-isolation is necessary.
Thanks, Human Resources Weld County Government 1150 O Street Greeley, CO 80631 (970) 400-4234 humanresources@weldgov.com
Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e‐mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited.
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-8 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 14
EXHIBIT A-32
SELF-ISOLATION GUIDELINES
A commonsense approach shall be used during self-isolation. Preventing the spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in homes, residential communities and workplaces is the goal of self-isolation. Self-isolation can be done as a result of experiencing symptoms or as a result of being a caregiver to someone experiencing symptoms of COVID-19. The following guidelines will aid in a commonsense approach if you need to self-isolate.
SELF-ISOLATION – WHEN?
In order to stop other people from getting COVID-19 (called Community Spread), each of the following should perform self-isolation:
• If you are well, but you have been in close contact with a case of COVID-19
• If you have symptoms (fever, cough and shortness of breath)
If these conditions exist, complete the Weld County Employee Self-Certification Form for COVID-19 Symptoms.
RESTRICT MOVEMENTS – HOW?
Self-Isolation involves restricting of movements described below:
• Restricted movements mean avoiding contact with other people as much as possible by staying at home
• You can still go outside for walks, runs or cycles on your own. But you should not spend time in close contact with other people. Close contact is within 6 feet of other people.
• Do not go to work or school
• Do not use public transportation
• Do not go to meetings, social gatherings, group events or crowded places
• Do not have visitors at your home
• Do not go shopping - where possible, order your groceries online or have some family or friends drop them off (outside your home)
• If you must shop for items of sustenance and are not symptomatic, go during off-hours where there are fewer crowds
• If having food or goods delivered to your house, pay for them electronically so that no money (cash) exchanges hands

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-8 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 14
EXHIBIT A-32
• Keep away from older people or anyone with long-term medical conditions
• Do not travel outside the Country or areas considered to be high risk
• Limit contact as much as possible. This also means limiting contact with persons living in your residence. Stay 6 feet away from other individuals at all times
• Cover coughs and sneezes with your upper sleeve or a tissue, and then discard the tissue immediately in a trash basket. Never cough in the direction of someone else
• Wash your hands with soap and water, or use alcohol-based hand rubs after coughing or sneezing or throwing a used tissue in the garbage
• Avoid sharing household items. Do not share drinking glasses, towels, eating utensils, bedding, or any other items until you are no longer asked to self-isolate
• Keep your surroundings clean. While the virus is not spread very well from contact with soiled household surfaces, try to clean surfaces that you share with others, such as door knobs, telephones, and bathroom surfaces (or any other object that you sneeze or cough on), with a standard household disinfectant such as disinfectant wipes. Wash your hands after cleaning the area.
• Visit loved ones by electronic devices instead of in person
• Cancel or postpone conferences and large meetings
ENDING SELF-ISOLATION
Self-Isolation and restricted movement generally end when the following conditions are met:
• This restriction of movement should last 14 days upon potential exposure through contact with a person demonstrating COVID-19 symptoms or;
• If self-isolation was due to your symptoms, you shall ensure at least 3 days (72 hours) have passed since recovery. Recovery is defined as resolution of fever without the use of feverreducing medications and improvement in respiratory symptoms (e.g., cough, shortness of breath). Your health care provider or a public health order may advise or require a longer period of isolation or conditions for return to work (e.g., wearing a mask at work until all symptoms are fully resolved) or;
• Medical testing results in an alternate diagnosis (e.g., tested positive for influenza). The criteria for return to work should be based on that diagnosis in consultation with the health care provider who made that diagnosis since COVID-19 has been shown to co-exist with other infections in some people.

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-8 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 14
EXHIBIT A-32
ILLNESS IN HOME – NOW WHAT?
Household members, intimate partners, and caregivers in a non-healthcare setting may have close contact with a person with symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or a person under investigation. Close contacts should monitor their health; they should call their healthcare provider right away if they develop symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 (e.g., fever, cough, shortness of breath)
Close contacts should follow these recommendations:
• Make sure that you understand and can help the patient follow their healthcare provider’s instructions for medication(s) and care. You should help the patient with basic needs in the home and provide support for getting groceries, prescriptions, and other personal needs.
• Monitor the patient’s symptoms. If the patient is getting sicker, call his or her healthcare provider. If the patient has a medical emergency and you need to call 911, notify the dispatch personnel that the patient has, or is being evaluated for COVID-19.
• Household members should stay in another room or be separated from the patient as much as possible. Household members should use a separate bedroom and bathroom, if available.
• Prohibit visitors who do not have an essential need to be in the home.
• Household members should care for any pets in the home. If possible, do not handle pets or other animals while sick. Wash your hands well after caring for any pets.
• Make sure that shared spaces in the home have good air flow, such as by an air conditioner or an opened window, weather permitting.
• Perform hand hygiene frequently. Wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds or use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer that contains 60 to 95% alcohol, covering all surfaces of your hands and rubbing them together until they feel dry. Soap and water should be used preferentially if hands are visibly dirty.
• Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth with unwashed hands.
• The patient should wear a facemask when you are around other people. If the patient is not able to wear a facemask (for example, because it causes trouble breathing), you, as the caregiver, should wear a mask when you are in the same room as the patient.
• Wear a disposable facemask and gloves when you touch or have contact with the patient’s blood, stool, or body fluids, such as saliva, sputum, nasal mucus, vomit, urine.
• Throw out disposable facemasks and gloves after using them. Do not reuse.
• When removing personal protective equipment, first remove and dispose of gloves. Then, immediately clean your hands with soap and water or alcohol-based hand sanitizer. Next,

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-8 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 14
EXHIBIT A-32
remove and dispose of facemask, and immediately clean your hands again with soap and water or alcohol-based hand sanitizer.
• Avoid sharing household items with the patient. You should not share dishes, drinking glasses, cups, eating utensils, towels, bedding, or other items. After the patient uses these items, you should wash them thoroughly
• Clean all “high-touch” surfaces, such as counters, tabletops, doorknobs, bathroom fixtures, toilets, phones, keyboards, tablets, and bedside tables, every day. Also, clean any surfaces that may have blood, stool, or body fluids on them.
• Use a household cleaning spray or wipe, according to the label instructions. Labels contain instructions for safe and effective use of the cleaning product including precautions you should take when applying the product, such as wearing gloves and making sure you have good ventilation during use of the product.
• Wash laundry thoroughly.
• Immediately remove and wash clothes or bedding that have blood, stool, or body fluids on them.
• Wear disposable gloves while handling soiled items and keep soiled items away from your body. Clean your hands (with soap and water or an alcohol-based hand sanitizer) immediately after removing your gloves.
• Read and follow directions on labels of laundry or clothing items and detergent. In general, using a normal laundry detergent according to washing machine instructions and dry thoroughly using the warmest temperatures recommended on the clothing label.
• Place all used disposable gloves, facemasks, and other contaminated items in a lined container before disposing of them with another household waste. Clean your hands (with soap and water or an alcohol-based hand sanitizer) immediately after handling these items. Soap and water should be used preferentially if hands are visibly dirty.
• As a caregiver, monitor yourself for signs of possible infection, including fever (100.4 degrees F or 38.0 degrees C or higher, measured twice a day), cough or difficulty breathing.

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-8 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 14

STRESS AND COPING

EXHIBIT A-32

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be stressful for people. Fear and anxiety about a disease can be overwhelming and cause strong emotions in adults and children. Coping with stress will make you, the people you care about, and your community stronger. Everyone reacts differently to stressful situations. How you respond to the outbreak can depend on your background, the things that make you different from other people, and the community you live in.

People who may respond more strongly to the stress of a crisis include

• Older people and people with chronic diseases who are at higher risk for COVID-19 • Children and teens • People who are helping with the response to COVID-19, like doctors and other health care
providers, or first responders • People who have mental health conditions including problems with substance use

Stress during an infectious disease outbreak can include

• Fear and worry about your own health and the health of your loved ones • Changes in sleep or eating patterns • Difficulty sleeping or concentrating • Worsening of chronic health problems • Increased use of alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs

People with preexisting mental health conditions should continue with their treatment and be aware of new or worsening symptoms. Additional information can be found at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration website at: https://www.samhsa.gov/disaster-preparedness

Taking care of yourself, your friends, and your family can help you cope with stress. Helping others cope with their stress can also make your community stronger.

THINGS YOU CAN DO TO SUPPORT YOURSELF

• Take breaks from watching, reading, or listening to news stories, including social media. Hearing about the pandemic repeatedly can be upsetting.
• Take care of your body. Take deep breaths and stretch. Try to eat healthy, well-balanced meals, exercise regularly, get plenty of sleep, and avoid alcohol and drugs.
• Make time to unwind. Try to do some other activities you enjoy. • Connect with others. Talk with people you trust about your concerns and how you are feeling.

REDUCE STRESS IN YOURSELF AND OTHERS

Sharing the facts about COVID-19 and understanding the actual risk to yourself and people you care about can make an outbreak less stressful. When you share accurate information about COVID-19 you can help make people feel less stressed and allow you to connect with them.

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-8 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 14

FOR PARENTS

EXHIBIT A-32

Children and teens react, in part, on what they see from the adults around them. When parents and caregivers deal with the COVID-19 calmly and confidently, they can provide the best support for their children. Parents can be more reassuring to others around them, especially children, if they are better prepared. Not all children and teens respond to stress in the same way. Some common changes to watch for include

• Excessive crying or irritation in younger children • Returning to behaviors they have outgrown (for example, toileting accidents or bedwetting) • Excessive worry or sadness • Unhealthy eating or sleeping habits • Irritability and “acting out” behaviors in teens • Poor school performance or avoiding school • Difficulty with attention and concentration • Avoidance of activities enjoyed in the past • Unexplained headaches or body pain • Use of alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs

There are many things you can do to support your child

• Take time to talk with your child or teen about the COVID-19 outbreak. Answer questions and share facts about COVID-19 in a way that your child or teen can understand.
• Reassure your child or teen that they are safe. Let them know it is ok if they feel upset. Share with them how you deal with your own stress so that they can learn how to cope from you.
• Limit your family’s exposure to news coverage of the event, including social media. Children may misinterpret what they hear and can be frightened about something they do not understand.
• Try to keep up with regular routines. If schools are closed, create a schedule for learning activities and relaxing or fun activities.
• Be a role model. Take breaks, get plenty of sleep, exercise, and eat well. Connect with your friends and family members.

FOR RESPONDERS

Responding to COVID-19 can take an emotional toll on you. There are things you can do to reduce secondary traumatic stress (STS) reactions:

• Acknowledge that STS can impact anyone helping families after a traumatic event. • Learn the symptoms including physical (fatigue, illness) and mental (fear, withdrawal, guilt). • Allow time for you and your family to recover from responding to the pandemic. • Create a menu of personal self-care activities that you enjoy, such as spending time with friends
and family, exercising, or reading a book. • Take a break from media coverage of COVID-19. • Ask for help if you feel overwhelmed or concerned that COVID-19 is affecting your ability to care
for your family and patients as you did before the outbreak.

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-8 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 14
EXHIBIT A-32
FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN RELEASED FROM QUARANTINE
Being separated from others if a healthcare provider thinks you may have been exposed to COVID-19 can be stressful, even if you do not get sick. Everyone feels differently after coming out of quarantine. Some feelings include:
• Mixed emotions, including relief after quarantine • Fear and worry about your own health and the health of your loved ones • Stress from the experience of monitoring yourself or being monitored by others for signs and
symptoms of COVID-19 • Sadness, anger, or frustration because friends or loved ones have unfounded fears of
contracting the disease from contact with you, even though you have been determined not to be contagious • Guilt about not being able to perform normal work or parenting duties during quarantine • Other emotional or mental health changes
Children may also feel upset or have other strong emotions if they, or someone they know, has been released from quarantine. You can help your child cope.
Call your healthcare provider if stress gets in the way of your daily activities for several days in a row.
This guidance does not constitute, substitute for, or supersede medical advice from a health care provider or a public health isolation or quarantine order from the jurisdiction in which you reside.

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-8 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 14
EXHIBIT A-33
From: Matthew Elbe <melbe@weldgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 4:01 PM To: DD Supervisors <DDSupervisors@co.weld.co.us>; DD Deputies <DDDeputies@co.weld.co.us>; DD Inmate Services <DDinmateservices@co.weld.co.us>; DD Court Services <DDCourtServices@co.weld.co.us>; DD Control <DDControl@co.weld.co.us> Subject: COVID‐19 Confirmation Importance: High
Fearless Staff,
We have just received confirmation of the first confirmed COVID‐19 case of an inmate in our facility. As concerning as this is, I cannot overlook the measures you all have taken to only have this be the first.
Please know that the belief is that this is still very much in its infancy in our community and certainly in our jail – we are very much on the upside of the hill right now. This point needs to be emphasized to all of us so that we continue to take the necessary precautions to prevent the spread of this amongst each other, within our families and within the inmate population. We all have to be on our game with this and if you have not been taking precautions as you should, please start now.
The inmate came out of unit [REDACTED] and as a result the following actions are being taken effective immediately…
Unit [REDACTED] ‐ Unit [REDACTED] is now on “quarantine” until further notice. Quarantine means that the inmates in that area are to be kept separate from all others in the jail whenever possible and should be kept separate from each other, within reason, while in the pod. No new inmates are to be introduced into the quarantined unit. ‐ Inmates in [REDACTED] must be locked down in their cells with HOUTs provided to two cells at a time once every 24 hours. The same two cells must be the same two cells out together every day for their HOUT. ‐ No inmates will be transferred into [REDACTED] until further notice. ‐ Inmates currently housed in [REDACTED] should not leave the housing unit unless it is for release from custody, to attend court, or to see medical. If you believe an inmate needs to leave the unit otherwise, please staff the reason with your sergeant (KSEP issues and other anomalies will be dealt with on an individual basis). There should be no inmate transferred from unit [REDACTED] to another unit for general housing!! ‐ All inmates coming out of Intake who are classified as HMED or MAXM cannot go into [REDACTED] and must be diverted to [REDACTED], [REDACTED] or [REDACTED]. ‐ Limit all exposure to [REDACTED] unless you are assigned there or approved to give breaks in there. ‐ All meals being served to [REDACTED] will be served on Styrofoam trays. These trays are to be disposed of in trash bags in the pod and thrown out with the trash.
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-8 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 14

‐ Prior to inmates going back to their cells after their HOUT, have them clean the areas they used, tables, phones,

‐

etc. appropriately. If you hear of or believe

that

an

inmate

inE[RXEDHAICBTEIDT] isAill-, 3or3any

unit

for

that

matter,

please

let

medical

now

ASAP so appropriate screenings can commence.

Please review these actions again and ask questions if you have them. Again, I cannot thank you enough for all the flexibility you all have had and the willingness to complete our necessary tasks during this time. Although this may not be over for us, I know that we have the resolve to see this through. We need to make good choices – please do your part.

Thanks everyone!!

Lieutenant Matt Elbe Detentions Division Weld County Sheriff’s Office 2110 O Street Greeley, CO 80634 970‐400‐3817 melbe@weldgov.com

2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-8 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 14
EXHIBIT A-34
EXHIBIT A-34 CONSISTS OF A SINGLE VIDEO FILE GENERATED BY THE WCSO ON OR ABOUT APRIL 2, 2020 BEING PROVIDED TO THE COURT UNDER SEPARATE COVER WITH A COPY BEING SENT TO ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-8 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 14
EXHIBIT A-35

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-8 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 14
Housing Unit deputies ‐ Please enforce this process with people leaving your housing unit.
This is yet another way we are working as a teamEtoX“SHtoIpBthIeTSpAre-a3d.5”
Thank you!
Michael S. Thompson
Detentions Sergeant
Weld County Sheriff’s Office 2110 'O' Street Greeley, CO 80631 970‐356‐4015 ext 4304 970‐815‐1063 mobile mthompson@weldgov.com
“lava minibus tuis”
Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e‐mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-9 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10
PREVENEXTHIIBNITGA-36ILLNESS
How to Protect Yourself & Others
Everyone Should
Clean your hands often
 Wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds especially after you have been in a public place, or after blowing your nose, coughing, or sneezing.
 Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth with unwashed hands.
Avoid close contact
 Avoid close contact with people  Put distance between yourself and other people.  Keeping distance from others is especially important for people who are at higher risk of getting very
sick.
Cover your mouth and nose with a face mask when around others
 Everyone will wear a face mask when they have to go out of their cell.  The cloth face mask is meant to protect other people.  Continue to keep about 6 feet between yourself and others. The face mask is not a substitute for social
distancing.
Cover coughs and sneezes
 If you are in your cell and do not have on your issued face mask, remember to always cover your mouth and nose with a tissue when you cough or sneeze or use the inside of your elbow.
 Throw used tissues in the trash.  Immediately wash your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds.
Clean and disinfect
 Clean AND disinfect frequently touched surfaces daily. This includes tables, doorknobs, countertops, handles, desks, phones, toilets, faucets, and sinks.
If you have these symptoms, report them to medical:

Fever

Cough

Shortness of breath

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-9 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 10
EXHIBIT A-36

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-9 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 10
EXHIBIT A-36
PREVENCIÓN DE ENFERMEDADES
Cómo protegerse y proteger a otros Todos deberían
Limpia tus manos con frecuencia
• Lávese las manos frecuentemente con agua y jabón durante al menos 20 segundos, especialmente después de haber estado en un lugar público, o después de sonarse la nariz, toser o estornudar.
• Evite tocarse los ojos, la nariz y la boca con las manos sin lavar.
Evitar el contacto cercano
• Evite el contacto cercano con personas • Ponga distancia entre usted y otras personas. • Mantener distancia de los demás es especialmente importante para las personas que corren un mayor riesgo
de enfermarse gravemente.
Cubra su boca y nariz con una mascarilla cuando esté cerca de otros
• Todos usarán una máscara facial cuando tengan que salir de su celda. • La máscara facial de tela está diseñada para proteger a otras personas. • Continúe manteniendo unos 6 pies entre usted y los demás. La máscara facial no es un sustituto del
distanciamiento social.
Cubra la tos y los estornudos
• Si está en su celda y no tiene su máscara facial emitida, recuerde siempre cubrirse la boca y la nariz con un pañuelo de papel cuando tosa o estornude o use la parte interna del codo.
• Tire los pañuelos usados a la basura. • Lávese inmediatamente las manos con agua y jabón durante al menos 20 segundos.
Limpiar y desinfectar
• Limpie Y desinfecte las superficies frecuentemente tocadas diariamente. Esto incluye mesas, pomos de puertas, encimeras, manijas, escritorios, teléfonos, inodoros, grifos y fregaderos.
Si tiene estos síntomas, repórtelos al médico:

Fiebre

Tos

Falta de aliento

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-9 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 10

EXHIBIT A-37
When you are SICK with COVID-19 symptoms, ISOLATE yourself from contact with others.
Sick people are the source of infection to other people.

Weld County Health Department

● ISOLATION means separating sick people with COVID-19 from people who are not sick.
● Who should be isolating themselves? ○ Anyone who has tested positive for COVID-19. ○ Anyone who has symptoms of fever OR cough OR sore throat OR shortness of breath. Some people with COVID-19 have only mild symptoms, or their illness starts out as mild but gets worse over several days.
● What does it mean to isolate yourself? ○ Stay home and stay away from others. In general, a person’s residence is the preferred setting for isolation. Pay particular attention to stay away from seniors, people with weak immune systems, and people with chronic health problems. ○ Do not go to work outside of your home. ○ Do not go to school or child care. ○ Do not go to public places. ○ Try to make arrangements for someone to drop off necessary supplies outside your home.
● Monitor your symptoms ○ If you are concerned about the severity of your symptoms, call your health care provider before seeking medical care in person. ○ If your condition requires calling 911, tell the 911 operator that you have or might have COVID-19. ○ Discussions about COVID-19 testing should be made with your health care provider.

● How long do you have to stay home and stay away from others? ○ You have had no fever for at least 3 days without using fever-reducing medication. AND ○ Your symptoms have greatly improved for at least 3 days. AND ○ At least 7 days have passed since your symptoms first appeared. If after 7 days, fever is still present OR respiratory symptoms are not improving, then stay home for 10 full days.
● Health care workers, first responders, and people who work in a long term care facility have additional instructions. You must immediately report your positive test result or report your illness to your health care facility supervisor. Follow the facility instructions and protocols for how long to stay home and when you are permitted to return to work. This may be 10 days after symptoms first appeared.
● Because of the rapid increase in COVID-19 cases, public health is asking sick persons to voluntarily comply with isolation. However, public health agencies have the legal authority to issue a public health order to mandate isolation.
More information on back....
www.weldhealth.org
Updated 3/30/2020

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-9 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 10

EXHIBIT A-37
When you have been EXPOSED to someone who is sick with COVID-19 symptoms, you are at risk for developing illness

● How can an exposure to COVID-19 happen? ○ COVID-19 is spread primarily when an infected, sick person coughes or sneezes and releases respiratory droplets near other people. These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs. ○ Exposure to COVID-19 can happen when you are in close contact with someone who has symptoms. Public health experts define close contact as being within 6 feet for 10 minutes or more with someone who is sick, or being coughed or sneezed on in the face. ○ There is still much to learn about whether COVID-19 can be spread from touching contaminated surfaces. It may be possible that a person can get COVID-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or eyes without washing their hands. ○ After an exposure, it can take up to 14 days for COVID-19 symptoms to develop if the exposure leads to infection.
● QUARANTINE after an exposure means keeping a safe distance from others just in case symptoms begin at any point. It also means monitoring your health for symptoms
● Who should follow quarantine instructions? ○ Anyone who had an exposure to someone who tested positive for COVID-19 or was exposed to someone likely to have COVID-19. That includes household members, or anyone else meeting criteria for close contact at work or other settings.
● How long do you need to follow quarantine? ○ Close contacts of persons with confirmed or likely COVID-19 should self-quarantine for 14 days from the time of their last contact with the person.
www.weldhealth.org

● What does it mean to monitor your health? ○ Take your temperature once or twice a day to be sure you do not have a fever, (greater than 100.4°F) and whenever you feel feverish. ○ Watch for symptoms of COVID-19, including a new — Fever OR — Cough OR sore throat OR shortness of breath. — Other additional symptoms that could be early signs of infection include body aches, extreme tiredness, runny nose, or chest congestion. ○ As the pandemic continues, more and more people might be exposed and you might not even realize that an exposure occurred. Be safe and monitor your health every day.
● What are the instructions for quarantine? ○ Refer to your supervisor for policies regarding work, work at home, or exclusion from work. ○ Avoid public places. ○ Avoid traveling by airplane, ship, long distance bus, or train. ○ Avoid using public transportation or ridesharing services. ○ If you do not have fever or respiratory symptoms, you may participate in limited outdoor activities as as long as you practice social distancing.
● What if you develop symptoms while in quarantine? ○ You might have COVID-19. Consult with your healthcare provider. ○ Stay home and follow isolation instructions even if you are not tested for COVID-19. ○ If you are concerned about the severity of your symptoms, call your health care provider before seeking medical care in person. ○ If your condition requires calling 911, tell the 911 operator that you might have COVID-19.

COVCIDa-s1e9 1ar:e2a0b-lcevto-0r0ec9o7ve7r-aPtAhBomeD. Doocument 26-9
not leave, except to get medical care. Do

FilSetdawby0ehhf4eoon/rm1eye3yoou/e2uxa0cereneptaetUrrotaoSuhngDedeaCtlotmthhCceeadroreiplcopearorloapcvaldiedroeaern’sdoPffaicge.e 6 of 10

Wear

not visit public areas.

• Stay home: People who are mildly ill with

• If yo

Steps to help prevent the spread • CIfOyVouIDar-e1c9arianrgefoarboltehteors:reIfctohveerpeartshoonmweh.oDisosick is not able

wh

• Stay in touch with your doctor. Call before you get medical care.

ntootwleeaavrea, feaxcceempatstko(gfoert emxeamdicpalel,cbaercea.uDsoe it causes trouble

bef

Home Care Advice for COVID-19 Be sure to get care if you feel worse or you think it is an

nborteavtihsiitnpg)u,btlhicenarpeeaosp. le who live in tWheeldhoCmouenstyhHouealdlthstDayepinartment

SotfeCpOsVtIoDh-1e9lpifpyreovueanrtetshicekspread emergency.

EXHIBIT•

A-37 a different room. When caregivers enter the room of the sick
Sptaeyrsinonto,utchhewyisthoyuouldr dwoecatorra. Cfaaclel mbeafsokr.eVyiosiutogrest, omtheedrictahlacnare.

• If yo to w

• Avoid public transportation: Avoid using public transportation, Bcearseugrievetros,gaertecnaoret rifecyoomumfeeenl dweodr.se or you think it is an

bre

oSotffeCCpOOsVVtIIoDD--h11e99lpiiffpyyrooeuuveaanrreet tsshiiccekkspread FpShFpOeOFyrorroLpoomLOiLtaudLtOeeLOerresa,cWLc-WettsttOehlhTfoToiaWyHsHattrohEnhiEisundeeSSTrkgrrTsTtnH,eEopEpoolPPEefewrpSSofortnSroBpBapotTxEalEmleeeiLsELcsOOPhti.oinnWWotoShmty:y:heBooeeIrIufuErfpisrLrypeyoOoheoohlaoupouoWtplmmieaaloer:rineeneeaIafaysrsonnoyiiccuouddkknurcdcwwoaoyrimimetothhumms.iCCcuukOOnnwViVittiIyItyDhD.. -C-11O99VoIoDrr-•1ttC•hh9oeAriCtiivvmndnioooesverkeiksrde-rutyrsygphy:eohoueoiCnuawbnuuokrrlchiviccmynmyeeot.gonrruiia,uggygnyohohsohmrputtusotirhgaharcmthxnaoaaitvduvtosieghe.oushanntii:htvteo,Ae,earffvznoiosteond,llsilldeofonoewuwolzlssoeitet.wnhhwgeetiphtssheuttbeeasplptiecssptbbsreaebnlloeoslwwpoowttroottaohhtiheeolelnpplp,

uveanret• Wtthsaoshhriotucheogrhkoluygswhliyptahftsreoraeupsea:anAdfdtweratuesrinogrpthuetsienitthemedsi,swhawsahshtheer.m Igfeytomueddiecvaelalotpenetmionerimgemnecdiyatwelay.rningsignsforCOVID-19 CSmtaaelldyaichhaoelmacdaerbeeexfcoerpetvifisyitoinugnaeeddoctor SiCEcnlveoeepvyaraeonyrruoahryntaoehenuoydirmnoscueooyrfoustugeelrhnfshforaomnmdesosnhtehoeeuzrledpseople D-19
y.
Cleanal“high-touch”surfaceseveryday Emergencywarningsignsinclude*: Wearafacemaskifyouaresick cdc.gov/COVID19 care.
n
•Dificultybreathingorshortnes ofbreath ation,

FFpSOOS•rttoLLaaSyLLtytyoOOeauhhcyWWotoasmwhTTmoHHoateeyhuEEeeflSSrdxxorTTccmsEEepetPPppaeoSStyttohtBBtpieonoEErlesgLLga:OOeeAisntWWtpsmmey::mcoeeiIIudfudfficiciryychca“ooahsalluuoisccmaakparrorreeeesosaossinmbiiccdlkke”,cwwoiimtthhmCCuOOnVVitIIyDD. --1199

or or

S•Sp•tt••raaSoSatSCnnyySCnnaULwrtatetitnooOaooOhhmeaysiaatttdyyttecyoohViVhbtlvtholvmmhlaaehIeeIciompioDowDasooasseemtmevinetovime-a-ttteeehe1:te1pysraep:,xxPpe:9,e9acf:PaccuePeuerrtroaeenxPaeobaxebowvrpppercodtcoplelmeoeiieeitteeprtplccpopehapoattalblloaeteatooebttbpwpahrtrhltwweltwtggehleeeheooothehaeeahersmhottorsgsttrgioo&aoooe.n.eaaemmpn.oaratrrratDeeeineymereermmmooceiceomddmmo,poneamueiimvialvlccodilddferlselaateiliisdiyal,rlcllrih:cdedlvnjaYiccayauaalollallaaylotvytysiimwcerrculltohihieelaaiallthuollerbwoslhrioerwhmkewlmmCaie..etohOini.eeDheDttuoVy,.h.dholmoIoeDDdDxuc-oec1oroe.we9pmsotttumroilcdutancroiotnuyt.nadct

• •• CnnSCngctBeSaBeSooooeOOatmrtɞmtetttteeayaVVhmgyylvlsehseAaeeeiIIuievriouirnDDnaarsnledgmgrtrvviirit--epetheectmsoeee11oan,enotpu:,,tul99aaococoucPueeccrlyhpyaehasgxxebg.g.rlrrwcchoenwelebeeiee.opt.itceittppttDaalcchhchaerttbbooaeaeryyllttwrcmnreoeeoooeeoauhumittsriggnrihooofvmf.deedgaiysrroaytteovieeoscrtoncmmetcceitdupuocoooeuneemkrrfdvvfb..ddoeeleewCitCieiitecolrrccadlialbaaatbaalwlwrlehlleyltteeboccaboihhiCnaansrelreoo.lrrsOfsyfreeVewommeooeV..irursoipoeeDDeIirtetroDr..hohyooyDDrryoy-osotom1o,oousuu9oueotg.,ghttfeiehehttprtiiintenmmshtkkasseentididotitiliriclicssaoalalatnchncaaerrree..

•••Sh••Sh• •Sh••Mee•Sh•••ooBeArBeArSSyaUnSSyaeoppaentArSwSommoiiihttttArSyaULwovvmmnnooArSyaULwoCaehpodeemplaaeddtsmvaaaaoiientoovnoiiattɞvmenopeuueetmddaaadtseimayyyyerrardseeimaoosseieihiload-thusedtuaa,,epddvedyysrlteeky--rvuuiiaiaeierrsshiaaaieirwWhCaaAhheoha,dnnetatttssad,mdto-yawwggpphhs-iaeaarrwwrsannaareehhioottrhrhhsOcmsnsttosicpwpitthuueeeenpwgpcwheorooaawehhortphnehidioeooseiiuauhpaaiaasupiyyybbnnoeduetomnssVayyhernouuayttmeaniueuupaayyetidtrrsayebaioolltygeobsnhmyacctoouscdoytpffdiiuiiopntllmccImybiirpeaysoolra,accaaasossuuorrlddyyufuffannhhaDcbiiil:fiiiuulalhooiracggvlmnscutclrrrpdottc..fsnucrpadrripylIkkfrenaaggesaotwwrcmmetrreassboocco-rrseerottssfrrlthinknrlnnaaygnkoaha1tm,,gfrttsoaeersmwmdreelsoslmmttewtwiiliostfnayonneraadintna,attootsyootdoodt.,9netm.hlleeorrmacyiwcchhneoissakx,nyyhroseoffttoaatomowworra,lbt.pdlmoppraaotaeoohhiscohyiftaucshywlyyftsirffbwircntIbbiiipaoottohvrraesaptueetlohnntta.rrmpootratnnfafevpeiaaapeeosttrrhilaoohderhherrrotnthiehreyluuntnlrutesneittnhassiltxxyeprlaaeaothrtrooohmmearaasyaeerriiaane::tC,thsnhtyxmtttahaosiiyryffxossaimaersvoamsrrttmraAAdd:erfassshioa:httnssoirOstoiiuiroorse.oyyrtAhhe&oourts..ooeiAoovua&esppsppoiaassasoiotnsuiehunoore.lccoorhrnnVoo.ponpttnoismaptpoeeaeevsaommattammngarr,uunhhmodt::nyommteCeooitootccneIemeipmnrmcmhmo:mfheuAAmbee:imdDoO,odciimrr,yieoppcuuffiotooec..fframAeeemAiurrseaee,uoVvvoopiuig,iitpullecc-aofnrCCrensafwfoertcceevneetrIieoopp1iavcrcuiiilhhciademllcDi:pfrlcssefoaancalltopestlcic’hodpii““isee9lirchiiai-ssoosAlosddctoaisllv,1ssnnaatakwwai“c,eaai:i“eooe.nllin:yodvhdollhvotiirsnadrajss9ravsna,Yjt.olaaYouuoccTppbbuoo.elfyyuofiiwell’asiieil.asswafoitmukkcpppttoaouclpholyssrrlleesdooiycisfrihFaliiceekptfBiuklssptiisrlootoulffanisioolttuuetrrooainneuabtariemseeeeoomiooioossfhsiiuooronnlru.nsrrhrbslsrlnblasnnmggfirrssshiiorwssinsooieooormnihtknernlhanegkeehhltnuygiiscseo:.ppyyerrommgbbdwm.etohimhryeieohoeooi.pyyleymoob.piuuymSblldyyuolepotuIouhyommeeoo””oybuooeuufliubbteloouhulcymoeln”,,romioevl”uuuedrbyubarredlbllluueeor,u,iiiouerpllrglreil..cciregglurCiucrhisttepe.ocwuye.ceewetthhtOtatkofssttrrrstotciionataanortuVnnyarmmlunruardnniarrookksIiemlianlsncpeeDssdcuwbdriitiosppddtsfbireett-narptapoocii1ytceiirccasa.roocooorrssf9oaatiorouttornirncolluaaouaatantkrtfntnnccauntteaennaat,aaiitwetndcadoodcirrlitcodtionneettn..n,,h,,

or•• CCCtWSLwoULwoaaheimbotW3l1iihɞɞɞɞtlttlmut6emmlsniiilehe1ɞɞhlhhɞɞitten2eealedea0iiAarwWhCaAarwWhCdhhaeeeo-sattrirrAkeeAarwWhCaaAihannncAarwWhCaaAsghfoorOOnlliiccreopfappcc.annnetthheonnntteOgiiinooli0ouueOinlsyppeilcoochh3tmmmfVVTchheenatt.hdiinntueea/diifeuaoifssroh2hoimmeeVomhchttoommVheam0ieInnttIImdeppseeidiaa/saaafmfssoocoomaaeus2sDDaouunIclenIhh0aaeaaammnneplllreyaaasfccppaDb2ppufeaDaabuwsssggh0h,mn--otllorcoottmwntllmpiilllp(mlennpoossg11hheessgeaee-nmmusioeceebwb-wwsollialiao1fhossarldder1dddmt99fnnhmbwerm..lbwteelifcioattiifoohssseldheaat9nsdg9nttlo..ayddeccolhhiyetccsoohriisaretaenthhhrsllia.n9dIIbbsobocho.rhdeeesskcaacorhlieleeeacgttisli.ff’pliIebo1ppeIbosallmmauddlrreehhstsautcmrrlkemuufveeiefvryyee1etlmeedrtpeelmdfrryporueee:i,,unnheittyitteihiooiry6eeosyueooonysyrrffnnato,ssnhhhhnthh,iIontttioiuuartoomoirfhfonnoturhfhntt&&fhgghiiaahaattaataaoueetovueoeodrrpulleiueuei.giammattannvvgcvviaanaeonaanrosslerrmmlmitrmyytnvivmeetteevvaiippnnarsniisgmaamnsgaauuymhommooycceeseiaeperiiipcrrooeeisnnfaacuetoiftmmukkcssoyuuecwfeb,yeitooeenooatoorreannsanfaa,koottsukoslurroyiaaaoeelrewwrlinscoppwrllsrotnswfooftotttvrucccssyreellmu,wiheaapmiwtiopllosstiioiittcaakctea)chi,,mccbbreeipannrnn::ttaltihh.lciltaktkirrevsitakab,jjeuabneehhYYnedtlhnaandthffhuuiiwweehrTee,atrotweh,tmmeeoodarsehoofoiwhefoiewssieerrCCiweikotmeffoiwiinnwtnmeoorriuulsoacttrttCcsooh,rnaaCfhinammOOpmmfprinanrdthhsatntotarrllotrrllmewarbOmassmeoOmahhtsoriissohs.eeVVrrl.eetrhhaamyrkklolttmyyhhirsvchresVpplfeeVawwmmtthhealtyIIyeeoohtooiatytped.piiwm.ooDDthowymh.hIthoocyeeIuuooouuhheyypibboDSeieoDrroSeouesouhek--roullnnherrbiioovvmlbeettrsddr11uepllret-unrrr-ivnssrietiiuueevrrppseet1eeleaa1ii99rlrrsppoierrrhspssierppooeesni9oopuuryyi9ww,,CrreenChaskhsoeadottouoeyffkkoooff,uyassniisss,tOatooOtntafktobffsknnooeiottppuuefesiyyillsntbuuneetrrdlnompuVciiiiynorrpuVaooooeeyllssmmftiiaandalliiedrsfoioieorttoccouuewweIbbddsmIeabsmrrtassstssrlDstturwhDbbiiuwrreebeoeerogsrnnttsdttsaasebirooeueccbier-eeiie.nt-itwyntssaa..rrtllscco1tooen1rrfipeiolliioosat.rrslaooc.olcycrfe9nnccarf9ulioooolriuuoytoroonnookkrcncttoooottuueauennnpkrcankraatthhtuwwnerteulnnneaantddeccthhhwteenwanccdddftteaiideirrrettecttrdnicodirhhtrttlttmhphhe

C•C• •aa•••CaCllyIllaaCaehtfpCaehtotIwbIhallaamhpffaumappoallyelaAaaAyyehhlhpveaalpvolaofooewnnneaehheeeonnoaerooiouuurrehnnddieeeaahriiifgiomfgoaanemmeafaneddtaafeyraaerriraiddmrarteetcryancoonffaabbdm::mdmemeaoettlscuucllII:ecees:iaeessunffcyfIpeansyIpeaffrrrakdawffinfyiyyoornyetrn:drccdooyyoyooo,ynhrrYtekgteheheoorreto,touuc,totmih:pafapeuualeeucammouceuvver:vachhrvaaclraaroiiiilthreItshrooelssyaoaasnnlpfultylhtiikatvvorreatCphttttmCnhymoyheevohoeevueeiio(eOeodOnnoupeeusferreeiiaeraauolasnnuggaamrsVlemnloVnaiad:trrbrccmm.rffdtthIyyetIIlsttoomsemhedDw,fdD,oooceeerrx,swweaoatocuuel-ddmmle-iawrhvnr1vctnca1iicdrrdiimettoeekpedccrt9aad9iddhhioasporcaase,ttc.ppa.rtoor’atriillroaswattTaleeToooea’fccl’eshhlpnsrnahlovhalnntt,lfslleecdoooiidaofseib..otdsemmtfscfhrrfheiohnamefeofwcwici..remntyeteccaw’ahimSSshiomdeaelulsoeheeloueslksoorkreehyrfhryerfroepwoiCCephiclutaluhaOOepaptect.niVVnaieeduIInnsDDsttebs--ss11.e. tf99rooaaruennbddle

eampbpreeoraigntehtnmincygen)d,tet,hpceaanrlltpmyeooeunprlted, awonchtdootrlei’vslleotifhnfiectmeheoyhrooume should stay in

hemaavederifgoferenrmecnyatydrheopaovamret.CmWOehVnetInD, ac-an1rd9e.gtTievhlelirtsshweenimltlehyroetluhpe room of the sick

thhapeveeorsfoofrincme, tpahyreoyhtasehvcteoutChldOemwVIesDaerl-v1ae9fsa. acTenhmdisaowstkhil.elVrhiepsilatptoiresn, tost.her than

thcearoefgfiicveerpsr,oatreecntotthreemcosmelmveesnadnedd.other patients.

ttW••C•••W••C••Sh••ChhW••C•••ooW••C•••••C••••aeoeeIwbItbapcCtDWIwbItbapcCtDoiicpbvLCysWovvlSyaULwoSyfiffffplooennfiimeaaooonIwbItbapcCtDWwasraaieiioeerreiIwbItbapcCtDWwasDWwasWsTytHactSeAeevleeiotvoɞɞrssnoffyyyyddssoahhttffmoimanoeaavvrroeeavsouhiiociauaaoroeoaaoerrappffrrvvvsloeiiaukkreooooaehawwsssayyrrdhsemahasustyyduiissaaaheeeaaodeeeetecvrooveesaanprssyrvaroepafoorpnnngffooveuuuuaaharwppfrsuunaraasiuAarwWhCaaAihsoohiwsytrieyysssgmeezaggesonnrrttoia,ealooeetettsefftrrssoomapiiyyssfuulhieooeuceaaiipeefhesduuhhh::aiinnnhauoaeeaaaaeydeeirigoeeoonrhhherlOeeiibynolehyttgaafnhtrrtllsfficnntmoletttfrssi.pwcoothaCCvvr:coartctayya.ewhrrrraaoeaa::inrr:etorrhhieaaeiehaadiioeasaeeouauuhhhhorrfiiiieinahntsaawwpifwheeeehnosoyyh,,oiTTCvAziummbeebeeyVherrnoou:nnCvigrzzwaoTbbuuyoaarr::aoomrnnefurccaintaaaeaidffutwrusaieerrnyaa,Toottwlaloeelyeeelennmyrrescsct,ohnTTnhhiatodoeneseelyuuoonthhndueeeggoourllcntdrhIotvvnnn-hpceslhhrcyiiaaaeotgssahraarnrccasoscruuoeerhotadnhrsfnraurrtscmmccrihhDattlh.ffbbseguriducovh))sfmmegiorrpweeeehdddlvhirra,,trscsoh,ayooeeaaimscnkkootullsaaae,,arcsuhccuhrpyd,,tdf:pplfrriinctta)asfmuaiwerreekesstpgonntt)rrsssreem,aaaeeeuwonnea::ok-royyrr,nscaaoatazwwcconuueakoo,ra,ccIcatt:iihitooiis,raal:::oairhhnekloeisnre1nnYYfrahneegnrrant:neorreeymrggmalaeemswochhdnuettbw:ggtyyweyyfwrflllIltwwccsuoggIIWata:fpssuotyyooeoeacssneeannYeheseerdaandgcrtoottgY9neremtmmrhuusmytg.eemmoooolmheaaffyyseeeghhhhlssllhiyotkkgntiwsi:eiooahhteedsItmmhrysoeroseaeaaeaotootttomdmio:unuueeotnntom.msseuuaafduetrrnnlehczooauuruahaf:ehekohoclherrooomiInkttawohuuehorraamhymssaAnnlftmi;uceeonoommaadwiissurIccnbnoblinussSrooherifenssrsaar..uuolrrgohmtessnffuureomraaatoonsesslsuoCeddtraoppfsviaifssooeeeeuuaahhovdipohfilmay.ydtthotooWWccrrthhshfaru.yyreasohkkfettrshntsfdtruyydllOuaopeesmmsenhttdnniiddueaahhpiyeeeiyoeonnnnuannehhtooWcddottthoseaaotohwoWkfcartnsypnohrrooedooylnektoomiddiydoil,hVemnyoo2ctiisnt((hniheeeohsoddt22teettinaneeahphhiddodnttuuddertttmhrauovvpossymrataooreuuruufonidiiusuffhowwhuud:oeIhttiiiohae(eaahpporreaiit0aat(enehdccucudreassa00DseooesooethadudeeoaauggpgssrreeeurfhessiowAauuullb&rrsefallgwpooussiiiaratanfueooasiaoauupclliirvespneeddotcfs::ett-ssaanngrttmrrrseottlnsehhuhgeehrl,trnneosnns1louislimttehpotnsspevttluolsvayhhsernhhmmeodleeoaauuoarleoas:ciitIIaeeanaerldnsg:athrraneormenhhheeioaeehhyystyo9wweenattsttfeehlffsstewwmccleestaneearrIhccioneempnnllrooeeaifmaaduInrmcmtr“hehernohyfxxchuvlwlhm,,oe&rhyy:ccef,mmceeaawmwcsaaiyeerefecottewwnacsosswrioiieecuenntoaataaooaassrredihhnciaaoxyaaaoossaxrimmdnnkearrseehhrramrruffiemwAoeatitisazz,tesawitetpaauaartttswwdnniihueroahraacrrseonsaddiihafeewmmeeseenoonoosse.ortnharaffursnninnsarrlrhreezreenpprwuaccinrrkzibiannseaamaalwictliznaaiapemeseonngglnnddsillauifenemessefosUsossbyctaadefeppellpdehkkcneccssddreepeimslltpeeeenllaicerrhapptppaaaaaccengtndllaasiirellhslngii2sndt.lddispeersssikwtaklasaerrsapsl,welikwwiiaobsoovvoosaa“evvssnneeeelpeeep,acniny:rgdtpdllipayeehclheuitnnmodahooitellhhiffeen0deerr.vssnatmieeoov,rjtv..neeehssmmppiieeirozvoehYveynhjoeelwwiecrrooaaonlfoiieluoifwfnneevvwueeleiozzddtiteifmeayI,,estldettrrmwpeehuIItttimayesseermopellaroravnaotoryycccposarossaiivfseddiifzdyceheesnvee,eessrbbffzd..raaaoCrihhhr,oons6nnrifeddilonieerl”ts66kcntpterlooeuseeieucdrlaiangttlpattesioesddr..bit.seatsoesssesoeeb.agneauhdttssaeeennrieomeeaammneeOmd0ceueeclosahh00hooyuu:edhsrhtr.aaokkatti:sorru..epccrwwrlarstooolennne;amnoebrrksnnmttiernoameory%ebhnhhriaarsnnks%%tpnnOrirroseaawwacteeVwknn..tmrrachY’’tnaaercrwehankgaanssrrlttuntnya.ddnhassiisfdseolhhaaaareewuupd.VVoerh’woaawnpss.wm.eeohh’tttahsappoatoyaaIehhhhdoshtomsitoaaiysdssnssypiedauscVuoekk.eaasuhhissceVyoDrrratmSbsahhteniihhtnosolaaiewoohhhiuoooll.ffouttmhooeaoleflkysseerehssccbcaawrllnwikohthsccrirnffselhtteucooibnnuteeboufddcc-voeiifaaslnaasnenrmo.cpioiiehv”snniheooccaethhiifbutottgiiaedoil1afgcctlooedmmoppniea,assrddnndpteseaiwiattaa,sothiihooudiearpthhyirhddieehheecrstrhmiii9csnehhmr,stesnvtsCnntug..ssassootrssthccsuorrwe..seoeetoeeeoooduhtyoo.wrrw,sol.eanooiissswwraaoc..urw.sOdceraww.btlcceoorfbbookllo6frrssisiil,,issrioauul-tiollsas--aokknitcd.artnaablhchh..rooosibnos,tpuVooee0siiubbyo,peausselhkttpukattotthordigommhiioooaariimttollooeeek%ssaah,ebItsnhheesmttssiaoolmhhoratistmsuusenoDhssitticusswreabdoflrrr,sprgshonnnsehsusowwoieeeesootoeeussllsnubiacttreeea-dddnntaaowrentdrrn,aooooolateddrrtnffoolto1olcetdirdrrdroosacoaah.urrrpfdw,ttnolttaacttprssofttderf9heelhhonioohhrpuuooot.tohhttlsomespptttaasncatoe.iaooahaanuuhhaathnneaaumbbamhntaeetkrbbtaatnayyneaahhtuwhaoannbnneoneonallbbooellbataassnhyreeennwyeenddnluneeiiitaddlllddlcttiilsntersnnsee,deeccddihctllditiiinnrkkppcthtctkhkhe C•••C••C••llC••A•eewasWsTytHWwasWsTytlfhaWailvCaehtmeohhaaeWsTytHactaaoovvoolnaWsTytHactwDgbhhahaompcaaaaarohaooohnnlnnoandopoeeaaaahanloauulolheaiiaessscittpaviaclangssdoveanniiguppdhdvehhhaiiientsudeesrroiwbbnsyytoaellottsssreopesodhheperhaadriihrrtbdryshhhhhoooiiblaannyssahaassitalrfwgetoirzzabb.ishontaaahenesitaffhttofuuhonnusannaihooahosieaeneeneeriaioollnhhaannntssunnatttatuosnlrrenceeddarossnlneerrisshnhehn-gdrr,dddtmhmn-rtrgarerdgrsee,,rhhfidnrbsppswicabsid:oottssscrt2oidwwfatraez,,hwccpehntdau:::paaraiyhhIeepeoaasuuairwnooose0aewztt,llezcc,fWIWaa:aelssccn:nnagyneleersiaaoearrpnsoemmldm:ooclaWactlltteciiW:sa:noyectaanrttddthmbteerosaamsDthhleeeeopuuaatsi:dItcoi:d,Wtdinnll;;maadi,ssauecccelluaerraopufosseluaaIeggelIollcu;oaaos;ssooeladrshwafhhhsrlyyoorhgvfatsryycsrhhfgltanealttnnsaatshnnfoyhooosnhfaythhorisohefffooadshflthiidhniinhayyntladdo22ottltofnnttonrrmm-esoofanaeuuitig2ybiciiiCooeeaydctmaay.dnnrtym00nynarhmapggdvyataaebb0drroeennnoreuuoyiippOIoapgtsaegpb,,gettsnnfabenseefusussopnhhfudarrseeppoosusl,temoo,tVeshreeeunffllsseeoaaradunoloaraaasorreohheehroooerofrreycclhcfalntnIf.ntnnnaattrfahedsoaaohrmlheoroooaaorranldDr,ressaatpdttweiaytassneedddipaaryndonnarnneudtannsaonwnntsanletts-deodsllsneoassilrnavninddweersndd1nceewneeetdssezdttstzuan22yusdeeyeaa.tdwwesseaa,disseet9eeiatdiet2.saaoarh2li.o00arshttssTac..esscszzraeesn.toorafiifft0aiithtwoh0rahttttzoIIttiineh,azrnnottyeTssfoeeffwiifnnuw’iffhhliyiesaeesralnttin66ttseeroannttfhslggangfdnggitoeossseeilrrnteeiiccznte00gdauoehraaigtaswgtoo,er;;nnoogwtueoorecsirecbbdihr%%dfnnrhrn;ethnodggaarooi;norrfeobnnraetbllsweegswwnighhrppooootergantrraaanlpppcddl,lhhwnaamewanooihoimtasoaiiowwiilltepedsanpdrrosslaallnnottccno,iwnoinotnecliwccilteerrss..lnhhnniirtooskonimteggaotodeoortnnheadydpp.caehsi.hihgipddratgaornlnhhpaonvenpttpggsaaalersyranooseoovtgaaloouvwwrrtgaau.gtuwvttepollaoiiriaalltra--bznnbaal6..i6iiiibbiiainnlbltettnnblgg0a0aaabsaheengigbig%bss%nbfflrrna;lteooeesefltflggsgaae,oo,eddoooaalo.rre,ut,coaltoddileeahhlnchuchuspedd..sogoaanneseaest..hanennhmtemoo6aonoddoytt0anadtloln%hn,,uer ••CS••••3actSHact1bybH6oooooSeAwlloaa1SeAwa2ccaoavsggustovv0nvsiooh-ienoapprAoaeepteedtrdhhpidhhpioetthrraedd0shhaooii3chanca/nnsutnumt2ialleenidno0oaa--danggn/nrrd2i;ubbduwsln0tdlwl2wcalaauuaiwcw0yiaazyhsnhtllssannneaatallaiidiieeiensdzrtnsnttftssf:dderhbgeeiihiguurht:llhIre:ruier:eShh:zfrr:ttfaAb:aAdoedSffhhSoaasnbnIaarrvvofoannieeehhdnccdowoaspyyaddgaeeesaoisiipptdanssdnaffathassatheepdanioodaaartrtneaeeneosnnnaffeodsgmtll.ndu.duiiyylvddvoewttdctoociraiiwrrowshszzawhuuspyygiiateetiarib..earrbneentrr6tttllphehhergeyg0ywwaerrraaa%yrrdyadiinnaranttouroiieareddhhrrgnruueletcttsstnfriaayroyohltotnaa.htt.eohtethehnnoodyllyeaeelee.tbdde,veyaabbaescasrrssfoie,sev,leuuttavtsnsaneebbbt66tlioorolblbeido00opnsas,iirpge%%bpetynnu.,it,ltasggoeiUaieaaalolon,ttnsllnasnccehhnu,dundoo,ees,srfhhaomemmmalaooccapooeolln,,hsuuaoonttlhfd-h •A•• A•A•veAwSeAwvwuAovoDgbvvssnDgbooivaiiooappldwoettloeitiaoapiidehhdeeddaddnnssisrccasddodhssouuttssihiinfthooeitheiaaaennntdnyuussasslldraowwhollg,hccg,wiryyruhhunhacaicaaiwarcnwariinurgiiunnssethffnehgigpehhiggp:d:iptathhrns::DheespnDhp:eaa.AAg,,dddSereonnooe:soevvsorrhhatddatosnooAasnahthaaotrvssoniiopoeiddioennennnanaattirvrddadarrglttagissnspeeoosslphtlhihuou..bedhuuehovvaualtotyoccooiiucrewresshhphpeuedunsniiialiiilebbnssdsernndsetteghelliyieiggiyylihlis.hosysnrsnhohyyodd,ol,aduyeooltyeiiltrdrrrdoosouuosiette,twu,wuirryyieyttdtdr..reeeeehemerrslhyymlhemisi,snseenoo,,nbsssskmkoomoe,,isirrnsnneeet,.goo.gaossnpeed,,tiaamonnonddu,thmmwooiuuthtthh

a d per car
Cover
• Cov tiss
• Disp
• Was wa ava san
Clean
• Was soa Thi you the
• Han alc cov tog
• Soa esp
• Avo wit
Avoid
• Do n gla bed
cd

Cleanhigh-touchsurfacesinyourisolation Coveryourcoughsandsneezes

•AvDooidnosthsahrainreg: Dpeorsnoontaslhhaoreusdeihshoelds,itderminsking

• Cover: Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue when you cough or sneeze.

• wgbDgbclloeecwaaddndssdddosswteeiiccnnss.h.gg,,.wagccgwwruueoeiippo:ttssDhhlvv,,doooee//aattnhChhttCoiieeenntOOrrggsapphuuVVeelattootreeIIpphennDDlldssee.iiiollii11sssnnh,,r99yyettgoooos,wwuudrreerllhhissnoo,,kmmooirrnee..g

CCS•S331166D1122i00s--ApA o00s33/e/220:0//T22002h200row used tissues in a lined trash can.

d

yaaconolcvudoerhdrC“oiisnsliai-gcnbskafaeelrslcoets1odusm:hru2fa”r0anfaca-dneccsdesvsoab-nfi0aniyt0tohci9zoureo7mrroh7mwma-ionP.tndhLAseaaBtartesnlaoedsmaD,rsubetoobu6cnbt0uein%nmoeglatsetlyechnooecuhtlmero2aln6, -9

Filed*Th0i4s /li1st3i/s2n0ot aUll SinDcluCsivCe.oPloleraasedcoonsPulat ygoeur7moedf i1ca0l
provider for any other symptoms that are severe or

btoegdertohoemr uanntdilbtahtehyrofeoeml d. ry.

concerning.

Home Care Advice for COVID-19 EXHIBIT A-37 • SɞoaIpfaandcawraetgeirv:eSrooapr oatnhderwpaetersroanrenteheedsbetsotcolepatnioann,d espdeicsiianllfyecift haasnicdkspaerresvoins’isbblyedrirotoym. or bathroom, they
should do so on an as-needed basis. The caregiver/other • Avopidetrosuocnhisnhg:oAuvldoiwdetaoruachminagskyoanurdewyaeist, ansolsoen, ganads pmoosusitbhle
witahftuenrwthasehseicdkhpaenrdsso.n has used the bathroom.

Cmaeldl 9ic1a1l eimf yeorguehnacvyeaandmneedeidcatol ecmalle9rWg1e1el,ndncCoyot:iufIfynyttyohHueehoaaplvteheraDateoprartment that you have or think you might have, COVID-19. If possible, put on a facemask before medical help arrives.

•AAvHcovoiioudgnihsdt-hetaosrrsuhi,ncathgarbspiunleerrgtfsoaoppcnesea,slrdihsnooocoulnruskdaenehloopbhlhsdo,oiubntaeestmseh,hsrroeoomlmdotfeixctounrterso,ltso,ilets, WHohwetno dtoiscsotnotipnuheohmomeeiissoollaattioionn

items • kDeoynbootashrdarse,:tDabolentost, ashnadrbeeddishidees,tadbrilnesk.ing
• CogbDglnlleeaoadatsshsnndseeoeiasmn,stng,.cdsuchwdpuiassip,trinsehe,af:etoeicnatDtghtoaieurnnertoegaptnsussetihtlohsae,aprnettlosemdwiiliasesnhyl,seyh,tsooa,ovwruderbreineblhdklsodio,noimnogdgr,es.wtoitohl, or body fluids • Hoothuesrepheoolpdlecleinanyoeursr ahnomd ed.isWinafsehctdainshtes:s,Cdlreinaknintghgelaasrsesa, ocurpistaenmd

• PPeeoopplelewwiitthh CCOOVIVDI-D19-1w9howhhavoeastraeyerdechoovmeering f(rhoommethiseoilratileldn)ecsasncasntolepavheohmomeeisuonldaetriothne under fotlhloewfinogllcoowndinitigoncso: nditions:
ɞ Ic•foyYnootuuawhgaiilvolenuohsta,hdyaonvoue faceatveensrtlfteooravadteelehtaeosrtmm3eidnaaefytsief(rwytoithuheoasuert etthhsetruielslee tmheidnicgisne

cdc.gov/COVID19 •wutiWetnhassilshsotwahepollraownuitgdhhwslyoaaatpfetaernrodursweaa:ntAeorftothererpruutdsienintteghretghdeienshstweiafitsihetemir.ssd, wirtays.h them
Thtehno,ruouseghalhyowuistehhsooladpdaisnindfwecattaenrto.r put in the dishwasher.
CCllɞeeaaBennnesasuclulor“reemhsitagomfhef-ootalonnloudlwcyheft”tfhoseeucutriinfcvahsecteerusudsceetvsoieoufrnrtysfhdaeoancypertoshdeulcatb.eMl taony

Igfeh§thytaaomvtuYereeoddhduieucavachpeelapsalovteftepenevnheeetdrmaiso:d)nenrimgoemfneevcdiyeartwefloay.rrnaitnlegassitg7n2s hfooruCrsO(VthIDa-t1i9s E•mAerttNghhDeranetOecrtyehfudewrlualscrydenmasiypnftsgeomvosefisgrnhnsao)svefineivmclepurrdoweve*i:tdhfooruatt tlehaestu3sedamysedicine

everyday Cleapnrohdiguhc-ttsoruecchosmumrfaecneds ikneeypouinrgistohleatsiounrface wet for
arease(“vseicraklrmooimnu”taensdtobaetnhsruoroemg)eervmesryadreayk;illed. Many also let areccaoremgmiveerncdleparnecaanudtdioisnisnfseuccthhaigshw-teoaurcihng gloves and
sCulrefmaancaekasininndgodstiushrienerfyeaocretu:ahsRoaouvfteitnhgeeloyohcdolemavneenc.otmilmatoinolny during use of

• DiAffiNcuDlty breathing or shortness of breath
• §•aPpApeeoyrNasotrDihuesdetrAertcnsoletyuampsgtahp7intodoraomysrshsphohrareavtsevnsepeuaisrsmseseopidnfrsobtinvhrceeeedacyt(ohhfueorhsrsatyevmxepaitmmomppslrefoi,rvswtehde)n
• NeAwNcDonfusion or inability to arouse

•tLsoɞueCyaurtflcnotMbhaaehhucdaeeeceoenrradsedesra“pfesitesnnfusgrxeiEridioocfvnctaPtkdedethfcrAiiuereersvcnsrccio-lenerttaaio.nfea.rlsemeAngyuciaicota”srsf:ounuftaoRrdnaelfn“lcor.dtsdeelhuiisicsdesitbkntiihhafnnreoootoecmohfctulmoyerdcso.om”iecmsohlaimemmnnoadofol.ndennbLclahydetatiaihttrgsornesohiunatooc-shsmfmtee,oc.dcbeautouncanhtnbentsesoeufltsroshfyeuaoonccuueldelsrdainn
bedroom and bathroom.
MoIfnaiɞtcoaIrfeygaoivucearrsoeyrgmoitvhpetrropomerrsootnhneeredpsetrosoclneann eaendd sditsoinfcelcetaansiackndperson’s • Sbeeedkromodmeisdioincrafbleaactthttreaonosmtiico,knth,pebyeurtsshcooanulll’dfsirwbste:adSrreaoeomkmaskoarnbdawthairtoaosmlon,gthaes y
• Washthoroughlyafteruse:Afterusingtheseitems,washthem mpoessdibisclehalaofcutaelrrdethdreoigssihcoktopaenwrsaaoynnihafasys-onuuseeerdditlehlndeebbsaastshirso.omTh.ecaregiver/other
is woprseernsoinngs(hfoour ledxwameaprlea, mifaysokuahnadvewait as long as possible
dCiofmfimcauoflnttleyyrtbotruheceahetshdicisnkurgpfa)e.cressoinncluhdaespuhsoendest, hreemboatethcornotoromls,. counters,
If you develop emergency warning signs for COVID-19 •tbaɞeHckbdoleCosseiuiyaygtfdoflbmnhelipcoty-stpeetao,aobtrudroolsudorer,modscst.reho,kasmctn.bstaooTuelbberrhrsltbge,feoaeetbypfcsnaoes,wtcrh,saeyirdnoliglrnoodootmcoieobnlrlufmgelkixddyint,neuosoc:riupebaBdshlsewe,l,oftathoobnahiaralebeeettsltahset,g,dosrroko.eaideomnnyomgbd.oottatfoeierdxltcsltho,utetnhratebedrslmoeo,tclststy,oo,oairlnue’dsrts,
thoroughly with soap and water or put in the dishwasher. • •WekCbneoleCoeetadlneeapryatrnahantffeahlsamunanceied.fddbmesddudaiiosissiliknsndin:tfitaIefnhfencgtecpc.tameoIrafse.fsrrayeiosobamtulhseac,ottaphtmnhua’aetttyromphpnuaaetvyaoeopfhbnalalecoaveo(emfdaa,tbacsltleseookmaoosblda,tes,o6fkrso,btfrooeterdeoyytl,oftloourids
getmedicalat entionimmediately. •awHaoyu)s.eThohlidscwleiallnhereslapnpdrdoitsiencftectthaentps:eCoplelaeninththeearoefaficoeroitrem

If af•t§eBrlu7aitsdlhaeaylisspt,s7foedrvaefyarscieshasvteillpparsesseednstinOcRe yreosuprirsaytmorpytoms sdyamyɞ*spcpTo.Iyhrtfhonooayivcupmosfeiupidlcrsriweenassarntntiilnrfeilaselogbdepr.en:anptaovoeentestaytarheilmeodlodtimpthnoreceodrlvuaessiftynitevmgerer,mp.tttPhhionleeemensasesisfettthyhcaaoorytnueeahsaruotrelmhetsieysentovgfiueloslrrrehcmo1aonve0redtaficugalillous, In all§casYeosu, nfoollloowngtehrehgauviedaanfceeveorf(ywoituhrohuetatlthhecaursee provider andClaolcla9ml1he1edaiifcltyihnoeudethhpaavtretrmeademuncteedisficfteahvleeeyrmsp)erorgveidnecya:dIdf iytoiounhaalve a advmtihc§eea.dt iyAocoatNuhl Deehmrasveyermgoerpnttchoyimnaksnydhoanuvemeediimgthoptrchoaavllve9ed1, C1(fO,onVroIeDtixf-y1am9th. pIeflpeo,opwsesrhiabetloner,
put oynoaurfaccoeumgahskorbeshfoorretmneesdsicoafl bhreelpatahrrhivaevse. improved)
If you devAelNopDemergency warning signs for COVID-19 get InmEH•maeloeldPrcwgiea§cesoatnepolcsyay,ladeopfwtoiuawtlsalercoirrtntnowe.hitnncYtiCgetohoOiiensnvuViggeuIriDunmdedsi-d1mtohia9nwconecwtlocmduoehdinraeooeeft*whieygs:aioloalvyultle.raifvshotteielaolaoytnleetwhdscthCasorDeimnCperaogvruiodidwere,al2inn4delhso.coaul rs
healt(hhodmepeairstomlaetnetd. )Tchaendsetcoispiohnotmoestiospolhaotimone iusnodlaetrion should be
madtehienfcooDllniofsfwuiclitunalgttyicoonbnrwedaiittthihoiynnosgu: rorhesahlothrtcnaeressproofvbidreeraathnd state acinrdculmoɞ csaIctfloayhPnnoeetucaaerwlgssti.iihlsol tnudeoesntp,thyaaprovtauemianceatnoensrttslpte. oraLevodsecesahtuleordremmecieniisnaiteofhtnieefsrcydhtoeheupesetasneredthsotrniellleotchalings

wHawoiutitsinheghsooroladopmcalen.adnwerastearnodrdaisniontfheectradnettse:rCgleeannttihfeitariesadoirritteym.
Clean al “high-touch”surfaces everyday • FhiiwhBnnoeoeiTlsftaulhɞoshtosluterreswrhBepshuomeneonarcdec,tlvpoaasodteuserduitpaudfeosrionuraioaernseildrclneilnotnastwssmmwf.sttaeohaorecfrittnuothneeenfacueroctuncat:oosltiithnnl.oYremeosednhaostwcrnsmouuetkofcloftrterditfhhonineloeeemdogcnnrdictsidssyyinkaeovuioolenstnereuutehfertrruegphreuhgecesiasnnceteellyattaargtoimnbimlhofttefthinhplsta.tctsehtiuoaasoeorrtsveemehuninpsporsikrsbtufrroilhoaryaliedlvectnedueisididldearcatwef.sytebrrM..eweeaaTMtlpnhanifdtleondaolonrenyrgl,tfoyfiuaiecvnslacesetgliovae use ofrtehceopmromduectn.dMpanryecparoudtuicotns srescoumchmeansdwkeeeapriinnggthgelosuvrefascaenwdet
for sevmeraakl miningusteusrteoyeonusurheagveermgsooarde vkiellnedt.ilMatainoynaldsoureincogmumseendof precautthioenspsruocdhuacstw. earing gloves and making sure you have good venɞtilaMbtieoonesfdtfueErciPntgAivu-ers.eeAgoifsftuthelelreplirdsotdhuoocftu.dsieshinofldecdtaisnintsfeccatnanbtesfsohuonudld

More inhfoaNrvmeewhataicpoonpneifnsueasdvioa:nilaobrleinhaebriel.ity to arouse Additio§naBlYtlihunoirfusoeherhmalfiuvpaelstlihodonaradyffsoanrcooehffeneaovltefhrecvfaoerrreawptriotlehvaoisdutetr7st2:hIehnouteusrreismm(tehdaitciinse
HealthcaretIhnaftecrteidouncPersefveevnetriso)n and Control Recommendations
Emergency warning signs include*: f*oTrhPiserlistoinssAnoUNtnaDdlleinrcIlunsvivees.tPigleaatsieoncofnosurl2t y0o1u9r mNeodviceallCpororvoidnearvfiorruasn.y
other sy§mptomthsetrhastyamrepsteovmeresohracvoneciemrnpinrgo. ved (for example, when
your cough or shortness of breath have improved)
Cmaeldlic9al1§e1mieAaffirtrgNyseleoDtnacuaysphtapan7edvadenraeeayedsdmhtoeadcvaiecllap9la1es1ms,enedortgsifeiynntccheye:yooIpfeuyrraotusoyrhmathvapettayoomu s have ɞorItfhyinoku ywoiull bmeigthesttheadvteo, CdOeVtIeDr-1m9i.nIfepiofsysioblue,apruet sotnilal fcaocnemtaagskious,

hereexternal icon.

before myeoduicaclahnellpeavrreivehso. me after these three things have

Most EPA-registered household disinfectants should be effective. Monitor your symptoms
Cleanhigh-touchsurfacesinyourisolation • Seekmedicalattention,butcallfirst:Seek medical care right away if your illness is worsening (for example, if you have difficulty breathing).
ɞ Call your doctor before going in: Before going to the doctor’s office oWreeldmCeorugnetnycHyeraoltohmD,epcaalrltmaheenat d and tell them your

• Dificultybreathingorshortnes ofbreath happened: § You no longer have a fever (without the use medicine that reduces fevers) AND § other symptoms have improved (for example, when your cough or shortness of breath have improved)
www§ .wAyoNeuDlrdecheiveead tlwtho .noegragtive tests in a row, 24 hours
apart. Your doctor will follow CDC guidelines.

symptoms. They will tell you what to do.

In all cases, follow the guidance of your healthcare provider and local

• Wear a facemask: If possible, put on a facemask before you

health department. The decision to stop home isolation should be

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-9 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 10

EXHIBIT A-38
PREVENTING ILLNESS

Clean your hands often
• Wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds especially after you have been in a public place, or after blowing your nose, coughing, or sneezing.
• Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth with unwashed hands.
Avoid close contact
• Avoid close contact with people • Put distance between yourself and other people (Keep at least 6 feet between you and other when
possible). • Keeping distance from others is especially important for people who are at higher risk of getting very
sick.
Cover your mouth and nose with a face mask when around others
• Everyone will wear a face mask when they have to go out of their cell. • The cloth face mask is meant to protect other people. • Continue to keep about 6 feet between yourself and others. The face mask is not a substitute for social
distancing.
Cover coughs and sneezes
• If you are in your cell and do not have on your issued face mask, remember to always cover your mouth and nose with a tissue when you cough or sneeze or use the inside of your elbow.
• Throw used tissues in the trash. • Immediately wash your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds.
Clean and disinfect
• Clean AND disinfect frequently touched surfaces daily. This includes tables, doorknobs, countertops, handles, desks, phones, toilets, faucets, and sinks.
If you have these symptoms, report them to medical:

Fever

Cough

Shortness of breath

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-9 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 10

PREVENCIÓN DE ENFERMEDADES
EXHIBIT A-38
Limpia tus manos con frecuencia
• Lávese las manos frecuentemente con agua y jabón durante al menos 20 segundos, especialmente después de haber estado en un lugar público, o después de sonarse la nariz, toser o estornudar.
• Evite tocarse los ojos, la nariz y la boca con las manos sin lavar.
Evitar el contacto cercano
• Evite el contacto cercano con personas • Ponga distancia entre usted y otras personas. ( Mantenga a lo menos 6 piez de distancia cuando sea posible). • Mantener distancia de los demás es especialmente importante para las personas que corren un mayor riesgo
de enfermarse gravemente.
Cubra su boca y nariz con una mascarilla cuando esté cerca de otros
• Todos usarán una máscara facial cuando tengan que salir de su celda. • La máscara facial de tela está diseñada para proteger a otras personas. • Continúe manteniendo unos 6 pies entre usted y los demás. La máscara facial no es un sustituto del
distanciamiento social.
Cubra la tos y los estornudos
• Si está en su celda y no tiene su máscara facial emitida, recuerde siempre cubrirse la boca y la nariz con un pañuelo de papel cuando tosa o estornude o use la parte interna del codo.
• Tire los pañuelos usados a la basura. • Lávese inmediatamente las manos con agua y jabón durante al menos 20 segundos.

Limpiar y desinfectar
• Limpie Y desinfecte las superficies frecuentemente tocadas diariamente. Esto incluye mesas, pomos de puertas, encimeras, manijas, escritorios, teléfonos, inodoros, grifos y fregaderos.

Si tiene estos síntomas, repórtelos al médico:

Fiebre

Tos

Falta de aliento

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-9 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 10
EXHIBIT A-39

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-10 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10

EXHIBIT A-40

Name Age Height / Weight Hair / Eyes

Thomas Edward Carranza 55 5’10 / 180 lbs Brown / Brown

WELD COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE RECORD: Arrested 01/11/2020 Weld County Case 20M119 - $1,000 Cash or Surety Bond
OPEN COURT CASES: Weld 20M119 - Greeley PD 20G002712 Arrest Charge: 3’ Assault Next Court: 05/04/2020 – Motions Hearing Bond: $1,000 Cash or Surety Notes: - Motion filed in this case 03/16/2020 for PR bond due to Covid-19, denied 03/17/2020 - Motion filed in this case 03/23/2020 for PR bond due to Covid-19, denied 03/31/2020
ARREST RECORD (Summary of charges, obtain criminal history for full details): Arrested involving FTA/FTC warrants: 6 1988: Theft 1989: DUI 1990: 2’ Burglary 1992: Theft, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia 1994: Conditional Release Violation, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, DUI 1997 (CA): Arrest for 2’ Burglary Warrant out of CO 1998: Department of Correction sentence for 2’ Burglary 1999: DUR, Traffic, Parole Violation 2000: Traffic 2001: DUI 2002: Marijuana, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia 2004: Escape 2005: 2’ Burglary, 2’ Trespass, Harassment, Department of Correction sentence for 1’ Trespass 2006: Parole Violation 2015: Theft; Forgery 2020: 3’ Assault

Southwest Substation 4209 WCR 24 1/2 Longmont, Colorado 80504 (720) 652-2415 Fax (720) 652-4217

Headquarters
1950 O Street Greeley, Colorado 80631
(970)356-4015 Fax (970)304-6467 Toll Free (800)436-9276 www.weldsheriff.com

Southeast Substation 2950 9th Street
Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 (303) 857-2465
Fax (303) 637-2422
Page | 1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-10 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 10

EXHIBIT A-41

Name Age Height / Weight Hair / Eyes

Jesus Martinez, Jr 33 5’06’’ / 168 lbs Black / Brown

WELD COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE RECORD: Arrested 11/14/2019 Weld County Case 19T3247 – $1,000 PR (posted) Weld County Case 19CR2988 – $10,000 Cash or Surety Weld County Case 19CR2989 – $50,000 Cash or Surety Weld County Case 19CR3230 – $70,000 Cash or Surety Parole Hold – No Bond

OPEN COURT CASES: Weld 19CR3230 - Parole Arrest Charge: Escape Next Court Date: 06/22/2020 – Disposition Hearing Bond: $70,000 Cash or Surety

Weld 19CR2989 – Greeley PD 19-17976B Arrest Charge: Controlled Substance Next Court Date: 06/22/2020 Bond: $50,000 Cash or Surety

Weld 19CR2988 – Greeley PD 19-17976A Arrest Charge: Vehicular Eluding Next Court Date: 06/22/2020 Bond: $10,000 Cash or Surety

ARREST RECORD (Summary of charges, obtain criminal history for full details): Arrests involving FTA/FTC warrants: 10 2006: Possession Controlled Substances, Traffic 2007: Traffic 2009: Eluding, HTO, Reckless Driving; Probation Violation; Bond Revocation; Department of
Corrections sentence for Possession of Controlled Substances 2012: Parole Violation; Possession of Controlled Substances 2017 (ND): Reckless Driving
2019: Parole Violation; Vehicular Eluding; Possession of Controlled Substances; Escape

Southwest Substation 4209 WCR 24 1/2 Longmont, Colorado 80504 (720) 652-2415 Fax (720) 652-4217

Headquarters
1950 O Street Greeley, Colorado 80631
(970)356-4015 Fax (970)304-6467 Toll Free (800)436-9276 www.weldsheriff.com

Southeast Substation 2950 9th Street
Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 (303) 857-2465
Fax (303) 637-2422
Page | 1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-10 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 10

EXHIBIT A-42

Name Age Height / Weight Hair / Eyes

Richard Steven Barnum 54 6’00’’ / 180 lbs Blonde / Blue

WELD COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE RECORD: Arrested 10/15/2019 Weld County Case 18CR1187 - $25,000 Cash or Surety Bond
OPEN COURT CASES: Weld 18CR1187 – Greeley PD 18G038915 Arrest Charges: 1’ Assault w/Deadly Weapon-SBI; 2’ Assault w/Deadly Weapon-Cause Injury; Felony Menacing; Felony Menacing; 1’ Trespass of Auto w/Intent to Commit Crime Next Court: 04/15/2020 – Hearing on Bond Bond: $25,000 Cash/Surety
ARREST RECORD (Summary of charges, obtain criminal history for full details): Arrested involving FTA/FTC warrants: 13 1986: DUI 1988: DUI 1992: Harassment-DV 1993: DUI 1994: DUI 1998: Traffic-HTO; Possession of Controlled Substance, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia 1999: Traffic 2000: Harassment-DV; Possession of Drug Paraphernalia; Possession of Controlled Substance; 3’ Assault-DV; Violation of Restraining Order; Traffic 2001: Possession of Controlled Substance; Forgery 2003: Possession of Forged Instruments, Receive Stolen Property 2004: Public Order Crimes, Department of Correction sentence for Theft 2012: Traffic, DUID, Forgery 2014: DUI, Traffic 2019: 1’ Assault with Deadly Weapon

Southwest Substation 4209 WCR 24 1/2 Longmont, Colorado 80504 (720) 652-2415 Fax (720) 652-4217

Headquarters
1950 O Street Greeley, Colorado 80631
(970)356-4015 Fax (970)304-6467 Toll Free (800)436-9276 www.weldsheriff.com

Southeast Substation 2950 9th Street
Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 (303) 857-2465
Fax (303) 637-2422
Page | 1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-10 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 10

EXHIBIT A-43

Name Age Height / Weight Hair / Eyes

Thomas Bellin Lewis 60 5’10’’ / 185 lbs Gray / Blue

WELD COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE RECORD: Arrested 01/03/2020 Weld County Court 20CR527(20M39) – $500 Cash Larimer County Court 18CR409 – $100 PR (posted) Weld County Court 15CR2405 – $1,000 Cash
OPEN COURT CASES: Weld 20CR527 – 20G000694 Arrest Charge: DUI w/3+ Priors, Possession of Controlled Substance, Obstructing a Peace Officer, DARP, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia Next Court Date: 05/18/2020 – Disposition Hearing Bond: $500 Cash Only
Weld 2015CR2405 – Windsor PD 15-17217 Arrest Charge: FTC with Probation Next Court Date: 05/18/2020 – Disposition Hearing Notes: Motion filed 03/19/2020 requesting bond to be converted to PR due to COVID-19, bond changed from $60,000 to $1000 Cash
Larimer 2018CR409 – Larimer County SO 18-1274 Arrest Charge: FTC warrant for Possession of Controlled Substance Next Court Date: 04/28/2020 – Re-Sentence Bond: $100 PR – Posted 03/19/2020

Southwest Substation 4209 WCR 24 1/2 Longmont, Colorado 80504 (720) 652-2415 Fax (720) 652-4217

Headquarters
1950 O Street Greeley, Colorado 80631
(970)356-4015 Fax (970)304-6467 Toll Free (800)436-9276 www.weldsheriff.com

Continued on next page
Southeast Substation 2950 9th Street
Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 (303) 857-2465
Fax (303) 637-2422
Page | 1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-10 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 10
EXHIBIT A-43
Thomas Lewis continued
ARREST RECORD (Summary of charges, obtain criminal history for full details): Arrests with FTA/FTC warrants: 5 1982 (CA): Disturbance by Loud/Unreasonable Noise 1985 (CA): False Identification to Peace Officer 1992 (CA): Cruelty-Elder/Dep Adult with GBI/Death, Battery with SBI; Possession of Controlled Substance 1993 (CA): Theft; Possession Controlled Substance (3 arrests), Possession of Hypodermic Needle; Petty Theft 1999 (GA): Harassing Phone Calls 2006 (CA): Possession of Controlled Substance; Vehicle Theft, Receive Stolen Property 2010: Dangerous Drugs Dist/Manu/Poss; DUI, Traffic 2012: DUI 2014: DUI, Traffic 2015: Vehicular Eluding, DUI, HTO, Traffic 2018 Possession of Dangerous Drugs, Tampering with Evidence, DUR, Traffic 2020 DUI, Possession Controlled Substances, Careless Driving, HTO, Eluding; Probation Violation

Southwest Substation 4209 WCR 24 1/2 Longmont, Colorado 80504 (720) 652-2415 Fax (720) 652-4217

Headquarters
1950 O Street Greeley, Colorado 80631
(970)356-4015 Fax (970)304-6467 Toll Free (800)436-9276 www.weldsheriff.com

Southeast Substation 2950 9th Street
Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 (303) 857-2465
Fax (303) 637-2422
Page | 2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-10 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 10

EXHIBIT A-44

Name Age Height / Weight Hair / Eyes

Michael Andrew Ward 31 6’00’’ / 140 lbs Blonde / Blue

WELD COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE RECORD: Arrested 03/05/2020 Weld Court Case 19CR2664 – Released Weld Court Case 19T4990 – Released Adams County Case 19M1906 - $1500 Cash or Surety
OPEN COURT CASES: Weld County 19CR2664 – Dacono PD 19DP05603 Arrest Charge: 1’ Trespass of Auto, Violation of Criminal Protection Order Next Court Date: 04/14/2020 - Hearing Notes: Pled Guilty 04/09/20 to Violation of Protection Order released on Probation
Adams County 19M1906 – Thornton PD 19-2625A Arrest Charge: FTC with Probation for 3’ Assault Next Court Date: 05/06/2020 Bond: $1500 Cash or Surety
ARREST RECORD (Summary of charges, obtain criminal history for full details): Arrested involving FTA/FTC warrants: 5 2009 (WY): Burglary; Fail to Comply Child Support; Traffic; Probation Violation 2019: 3’ Assault-DV; DUR 2020: 1’ Criminal Trespass of Auto, Violation of Restraining Order, 2’ Tampering

Southwest Substation 4209 WCR 24 1/2 Longmont, Colorado 80504 (720) 652-2415 Fax (720) 652-4217

Headquarters
1950 O Street Greeley, Colorado 80631
(970)356-4015 Fax (970)304-6467 Toll Free (800)436-9276 www.weldsheriff.com

Southeast Substation 2950 9th Street
Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 (303) 857-2465
Fax (303) 637-2422
Page | 1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-10 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 10

EXHIBIT A-45

Name Age Height / Weight Hair / Eyes

Colby David Propes 44 6’00’’ / 205 lbs Brown / Brown

WELD COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE RECORD: Arrested 02/18/2020 – Released 04/07/2020
OPEN COURT CASES: Weld 19T3259 – 19G038971 Arrest Charge: DUR, Careless Driving Next Court Date: 05/18/2020 – Sentencing Hearing Bond: $1,000 PR (posted)
Weld 19T2185 – 19W005201 Arrest Charge: DUR, Interlock Violation, Traffic Violation Next Court Date: 05/18/2020 – Disposition Hearing Bond: $1,000 PR (posted)
Weld 19T1999 – 19G024495 Arrest Charge: Block Rail Road Crossing, DUR, Interlock Violation Next Court Date: 05/18/2020 – Disposition Hearing Bond: $1000 PF (posted)
Weld 19CR3249 – Greeley 19G019771 Arrest Charge: ID Theft, Theft, Criminal Possession Financial Device, Criminal Possession Identification Documents, Unauthorized Use of Financial Transaction Device Next Court Date: 05/18/2020 Sentencing Hearing Bond: $25,000 Cash or Surety, 04/01/2020 Bond Reinstated with Surety
Weld 19CR3003 – Evans PD 19-18452 Arrest Charges: 1’ Aggravated Motor Vehicle Theft, Obstructing Police Officer Next Court Date: 05/18/2020 – Sentencing Hearing Bond: $5,000 Cash or Surety, 04/01/2020 Bond Reinstated with Surety

Southwest Substation 4209 WCR 24 1/2 Longmont, Colorado 80504 (720) 652-2415 Fax (720) 652-4217

Headquarters
1950 O Street Greeley, Colorado 80631
(970)356-4015 Fax (970)304-6467 Toll Free (800)436-9276 www.weldsheriff.com

Continued on next page
Southeast Substation 2950 9th Street
Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 (303) 857-2465
Fax (303) 637-2422
Page | 1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-10 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 10

EXHIBIT A-45

Colby Propes Continued

Weld 19CR950 – Greeley PD 19-6102 Arrest Charges: Possession Controlled Substance, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, DUR, Failure to Display Proof of Insurance, Lane Violation Next Court Date: 05/18/2020 – Disposition Hearing Bond: $20,000 Cash or Surety, 04/01/2020 Bond Reinstated with Surety
ARREST RECORD (Summary of charges, obtain criminal history for full details): Arrests with FTA/FTC warrants: 8 1997 (IN): Dealing Cocaine, Possession of Cocaine; Resisting, Possession Paraphernalia 1999 (IN): Possession Controlled Substance, Possession Marijuana, Possession Paraphernalia 2000 (IN): Possession of Marijuana, Possession of Paraphernalia; Carry Handgun No License, Resist Law Enforcement 2003: Traffic, Resisting Arrest 2004: DUI; DUS, Traffic, Restraining Order Violation, Reckless Driving; HTO 2005: HTO, DUI, Traffic 2006: DUR 2008: DARP 2013: HTO 2019: DUR, Violation of Interlock, Traffic; Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, Possession of Controlled Substances; Aggravated Motor Vehicle Theft, Obstruct Police; ID Theft, Theft, Possession of ID Document, Possession of Financial Transaction Device, Illegal Use of Credit Cards

Southwest Substation 4209 WCR 24 1/2 Longmont, Colorado 80504 (720) 652-2415 Fax (720) 652-4217

Headquarters
1950 O Street Greeley, Colorado 80631
(970)356-4015 Fax (970)304-6467 Toll Free (800)436-9276 www.weldsheriff.com

Southeast Substation 2950 9th Street
Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 (303) 857-2465
Fax (303) 637-2422
Page | 2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-10 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 10

EXHIBIT A-46

Name Age Height / Weight Hair / Eyes

Chad Cristen Hunter 46 5’09’’ / 135 lbs Brown / Blue

WELD COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE RECORD: Arrested 03/08/2020 – Weld County 19CR335 Scheduled Release Date 04/26/2020
OPEN COURT CASES: Weld 19T5691 – 19W029690 Arrest Charge: DUR, No Insurance Driver, Defective Headlights Next Court Date: 07/31/2020 Bond: $500 PR (Posted)
Weld 2019CR335 – 19EP01791 Arrest Charge: FTC Warrant for: Display Unlawful License Plate, No Insurance Owner, DUR, Possession of Weapon by Previous Offender; Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, Possession of Controlled Substance, Possession of Forged Instrument Next Court Date: 04/14/2020 – Reconsideration of Sentence
ARREST RECORD (Summary of charges, obtain criminal history for full details): Arrested involving FTA/FTC warrants: 5 2001: Harassment 2002: Probation Violation 2003: Assault/Menacing, Criminal Mischief, 3’ Trespass; Aggravated Motor Vehicle Theft, Probation Violation 2004: False Info to Pawnbroker, Theft, Probation Violation 2005: Conditional Release Violation 2006: Department of Correction sentence for Criminal Mischief and False Info to Pawnbroker 2007: Parole Violation; Escape

Southwest Substation 4209 WCR 24 1/2 Longmont, Colorado 80504 (720) 652-2415 Fax (720) 652-4217

Headquarters
1950 O Street Greeley, Colorado 80631
(970)356-4015 Fax (970)304-6467 Toll Free (800)436-9276 www.weldsheriff.com

Continue on next page
Southeast Substation 2950 9th Street
Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 (303) 857-2465
Fax (303) 637-2422
Page | 1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 26-10 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 10

EXHIBIT A-46

Chad Hunter Continued

2009: 2’ Burglary, 1’ Aggravated Vehicle Theft 2011: Parole Violation; False Info to Pawnbroker 2012: Department of Correction sentence for False Info to Pawnbroker 2013: Conditional Release Violation, Parole Violation 2016: Shoplifting/Theft; Possession of Controlled Substances, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia;
Escape 2017: Traffic 2019: Possession Controlled Substance, 1’ Possession of Forged Document, Prohibited Use of
Weapon, Traffic

Southwest Substation 4209 WCR 24 1/2 Longmont, Colorado 80504 (720) 652-2415 Fax (720) 652-4217

Headquarters
1950 O Street Greeley, Colorado 80631
(970)356-4015 Fax (970)304-6467 Toll Free (800)436-9276 www.weldsheriff.com

Southeast Substation 2950 9th Street
Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 (303) 857-2465
Fax (303) 637-2422
Page | 2

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: 20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH
THOMAS CARRANZA, et al.
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE AND AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (ECF DOC. 1)
Plaintiffs, through undersigned counsel, respectively submit the following Notice of Supplemental Evidence and Authority in Support of Plaintiffs’ Request for Injunctive Relief (ECF Doc. 1) as follows:
I. Supplemental Evidence On the night of Tuesday April 7, 2020, Plaintiffs moved for an emergency order that the
Weld County Jail (“WCJ”) must provide inmates who are at high-risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19 with constitutionally adequate protection from infection with the virus. ECF Doc. 1. New evidence pertinent to this Court’s consideration of Plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief has come to light. Most importantly, the number of positive cases of COVID-19 in the Weld County Jail has increased. As of the day of the filing, the most recent news coverage reflected that WCJ had one inmate who had tested positive for COVID-19.1 By Friday, April 10,
1 Reid, Trevor, Greeley Tribune, Weld County Jail inmate, 4 employees test positive for COVID19, Apr. 1, 2020, available at https://www.greeleytribune.com/news/weld-county-jail-inmateseveral-employees-test-positive-for-covid-19/ (last viewed April 13, 2020).
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 8
2020, Plaintiffs’ counsel learned directly from WCJ staff that there were fourteen inmates who they had identified as positive for COVID-19, including six inmates with positive tests and eight inmates who were presumed positive based on symptoms. A fifteenth person had tested positive but had been transferred to the hospital. Additionally, in the six days since Plaintiffs filed their motion, deaths in Weld County resulting from COVID-19 have continued to increase. With 48 deaths, Weld County now has the largest number of COVID-19 related deaths in the state, surpassing Denver.2
Since last week’s filing, Plaintiffs’ counsel has learned that just two days after his release from the Weld County jail, an inmate died from COVID-19 complications. Exhibit 1, Cheryl Cook Declaration. Charles Peterson, the inmate who died, was a 78-year-old man who had spent about 20 days in WCJ on a parole hold before he was released gravely ill with COVID-19. Ex. 1, pp. 1-2. WCJ released Mr. Peterson who had been exhibiting symptoms while in jail, without informing the people who picked him up and shared a home with him that he was sick. Ex. 1, pp. 2-3. Mr. Peterson barely made it to his home before an ambulance had to be called. Ex. 1, p. 2. He died of complications from COVID-19 two days later. Ex. 1, p. 2. Mr. Peterson’s tragic story underscores the unreasonable risk of serious harm that the medically vulnerable Plaintiffs class face in the Weld County Jail.
Also since last week’s filing, numerous people incarcerated in the Weld County Jail have stepped forward to share the reality of the dire conditions within the jail that made WCJ ripe for the current COVID-19 outbreak. For instance, two recently released individuals who were trustees describe openly sick inmates being required to work in the kitchen, widespread failures
2 See COVID-19 Case Data, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT, https://covid19.colorado.gov/case-data (last viewed April 13, 2020).
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 8
to follow CDC guidelines, and failures to provide basic information to inmates about the virus and its spread within the jail. Exhibit 2, Declaration of Christopher Vecchiarelli; Exhibit 3, Declaration of Ralph Brewer.
While conditions in WCJ have improved recently, medically vulnerable inmates continue to be held in lockdown status in cells with other people who have likely been exposed to the virus. As new evidence shows, in these cells, where inmates spend 23 or more hours a day, physical distancing is impossible even with the recent changes made by WCJ. Exhibit 4, Declaration of Thomas Lewis; Exhibit 5, Declaration of Helen Griffith. Further, WCJ has not sought to interview inmates to identify who is medically vulnerable or to give those inmates single cells. Ex. 4, p. 2; Ex. 5, p. 3. As a result, medically vulnerable inmates, including Plaintiffs, are not able to practice the physical distancing that has the greatest chance of protecting them from infection and, ultimately, death.
II. Supplemental Authority Since this case was filed, courts have continued to issue rulings that recognize the dire
need for emergency action by courts, including by releasing incarcerated people who face a heightened risk of serious illness or death if they become infected. These courts openly recognize that the judiciary must act now or people will die.
1. Swain, et al. v. Junior, et al., Case No. 20-cv-21457, Doc. 25 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2020). – Exhibit 6.
On April 4, 2020, a group of inmates in the Miami-Dade Jail filed a class action lawsuit seeking the immediate release of all incarcerated people who, like the putative Plaintiffs’ class in the instant case, face a heighted risk of serious illness or death if they contract COVID-19. Swain, et al. v. Junior, et al., Case No. 20-cv-21457 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2020). Two days later, on
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 8
April 7, the court issued a temporary restraining order requiring the jail to produce a list to the court of all medically-vulnerable inmates and to take numerous actions within the jail to come into compliance with public health recommendations, including social distancing. Ex. 6¸ p. 2. In granting this temporary relief, the judge did not hold a hearing and instead “accepted the allegations in the Complaint and its attachments as true without briefing or evidentiary submissions by the Defendants,” and noted “this Order does not make a finding of wrongdoing on the part of any defendant and no defendant has waived any defenses to this action.” Id., at 5. With this temporary protection in place, the court set a briefing schedule for the preliminary injunction hearing now set for April 21. Id.
2. New York v. Brann, et al., Index No. 451078/2020 (Sup. Ct, N.Y. County Apr. 6, 2020) – Exhibit 7
On April 6, 2020, the Supreme Court of New York County issued an order releasing eighteen medically vulnerable pretrial detainees held at Rikers Island, because their continued incarceration in the facility, which had a known COVID-19 outbreak, violated the Due Process Clause. Ex. 7. The court explained:
Covid-19 is at large at Rikers Island. The current epidemic poses a deadly threat to inmates, and its presence at the prison equates to an "unsafe, life-threatening condition" endangering "reasonable safety." See Helling v. McKinney, 509 US at 33, supra. Given such circumstances and the absence of a viable alternative, a court has no choice but to order release. Brown v. Plata, 563 US at 511, supra. Id., at 4. Several of the individuals had been accused of serious, violent crimes, and the court found such accusations could not justify placing these individuals at “substantial risk of death or other serious physical injury.” Id., at 9. The court also noted that, “it is critically important to remember that petitioners have been convicted of nothing. They instead face contested charges.” Id., at 6.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 8
In finding that the jail officials had failed to take “reasonable care” to mitigate the
risk posed by COVID-19 to these medically vulnerable inmates, the court underscored
that it “does not at all question the good faith of the Rikers officials.” Id., at 7. Still, the
court concluded that the magnitude of the risk required release:
Due process does not excuse prison officials who mean well, but have no effective way to protect inmates from potentially fatal epidemics. Again, prison officials are obliged to take “reasonable care” to mitigate the risk posed by Covid19. That is so especially for prisoners who can fairly expect extremely serious consequences if they contract the disease. “Reasonable care” and “mitigation” obligations are not satisfied by tossing a bucket of water on a four-alarm house fire, or by placing a band-Aid on a compound bone fracture. Reasonable care to mitigate must include an effort to employ an effective ameliorative measure. As would be expected when the Department of Corrections' own doctors ask for release, the escalating numbers of the infected show that what Rikers has done is not remotely effective. Prisoners with dangerous conditions are dramatically at risk. For some of them, only release can offer protection.
Id., at 7-8.
The court took this emergency action without waiting for a comprehensive
evidentiary hearing, recognizing that the current reality of the COVID-19 public health
crisis requires courts to take protective action immediately, before such action risks being
mooted out by serious illness or death:
These are not normal times. Courthouses are almost completely closed. Staffing is short — judges, court officers, court reporters, clerks, and IT employees. The ability of Rikers Island officials to arrange internet conferences with inmates is very limited. Medical records are not available. Expert medical witnesses are, to say the least, occupied. But the claims of these petitioners, and hundreds of other inmates who believe they are in immediate danger, deserve to be treated as emergency questions for courts and other officials who can grant release. Perhaps two months from now, when the disease has abated, the courtrooms will reopen, weeks can be spent marshaling evidence, and cross-examinations can be conducted. But there is no time to wait — the issues will be moot. The court's conclusions about inmate conditions had to be based on the records available to the parties, the lawyers' phone calls to busy experts, work on the internet, and Skype conversations held in the absence of affected petitioners.
Id., at 8-9.
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 8

3. U.S. v. Plunk, Case No. 94-cr-0036 (D. Alaska Apr. 9, 2020) – Exhibit 8

On April 6, 2020, the Alaska federal district court ordered compassionate release

of a federal prisoner who is older and suffers from serious underlying health conditions.

“The Court finds that COVID-19 presents a clear and present danger for individuals who

are in custody. If COVID-19 reaches Defendant’s custodial facility, his ability to follow

recommended self-care and public health guidance is substantially diminished by the

restrictions inherent to his environment.” Ex. 8, p. 8.

Dated: April 13, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Andy McNulty Andy McNulty Michael P. Fairhurst David A. Lane Darold W. Killmer KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP 1543 Champa St. Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 571-1000 (303) 571-1001 Facsimile amcnulty@kln-law.com mfairhurst@kln-law.com dlane@kln-law.com dkillmer@kn-law.com

and

David G. Maxted Maxted Law LLC 1543 Champa Street Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 720-717-0877 Fax: 720-500-1251 dave@maxtedlaw.com

and

Jamie Hughes Hubbard STIMSON STANCIL LABRANCHE HUBBARD, LLC

6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 8
Phone: 720.689.8909 Email: hubbard@sslhlaw.com Counsel for Plaintiffs Carranza, Martinez, Propes, Ward and Hunter Mark Silverstein Rebecca T. Wallace Sara R. Neel AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF COLORADO 303 E. 17th Avenue, Suite 350 Denver, Colorado 80203 (720) 402-3114 msilverstein@aclu-co.org rtwallace@aclu-co.org sneel@aclu-co.org and Daniel D. Williams Lauren E. Groth HUTCHINSON BLACK AND COOK, LLC 921 Walnut Street, Suite 200 Boulder, Colorado 80302 (303) 442-6514 Williams@hbcboulder.com Groth@hbcboulder.com In cooperation with the ACLU Foundation of Colorado Counsel for Plaintiffs Barnum and Lewis
7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 13, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE AND AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (ECF DOC. 1) with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification to the following counsel.

Matthew Hegarty Andrew Ringel John Peters HALL & EVANS LLC 1001 17th Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 hegartym@hallevans.com ringel@hallevans.com jpeters@hallevans.com

/s/ Charlotte Bocquin Scull Paralegal

8

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: THOMAS CARRANZA; JESUS MARTINEZ; RICHARD BARNUM; THOMAS LEWIS; MICHAEL WARD; and, COLBY PROPES,
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons,
V.
STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity, Defendant.
DECLARATION OF CHERYL COOK
I, Cheryl Cook, declare the following based on my personal knowledge: 1. I am the executive director of Rock Found, a re-entry center in Greeley, Colorado
that helps people coming out of prison find housing, jobs, and the community they need to build a meaningful life after incarceration.
2. A little over four years ago, I began working with Charles Peterson, who we called Charlie. He had spent almost twenty years in prison until he was granted parole and an opportunity to build a new life.
3. During the course of the past four years, Charlie took up residence and work at Rock Fund, and he became an important part of the Rock Fund family. I knew him personally and well, and I believe he was entirely committed to building and sustaining a worthwhile life after prison.

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
4. I am beyond sad that Charlie died ofCOVID-19 on Wednesday April 1,just two days after being released from the Weld County Jail.
5. Charlie had been in jail since March 11 on a parole hold. It was his first time behind bars in the 4 years since he'd been released. We at the Rock Fund had been doing all we could to get him out ofjail and were preparing to testify on his behalf at his upcoming hearing on May 24. But on Friday March 27, I received a call saying that there was a plan to release Charlie ifhe could continue to stay at Rock Fund. Of course I said yes. On Monday May 30, we were told Charlie was ready for pickup. I asked his Rock Fund roommate to pick Charlie up at the Weld County Jail.
6. A little while later, I got a call from Charlie's roommate saying something was wrong with Charlie, that he could barely walk. Another of Charlie's roommates called to tell me Charlie is very sick, that he was cold and shivering. I called the paramedics and let them know that Charlie needed medical attention and had just been released from the Weld County Jail. I honestly could not believe that not a single person from the Weld County Jail had told anyone at Rock Fund that they were releasing a seriously sick person into our care, especially in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis.
7. Charlie was immediately admitted into the hospital. The next morning, on . Tuesday March 31, the doctor called me and said that Charlie was gravely ill and wanted to
know his end oflife wishes. The next day, at around 11:30 a.m., Charlie died in the hospital. 8. The doctor told me that they suspected Charlie had COVID-19 based on a lung
scan, but that they did not yet have the results of the COVID-19 test. On Friday April 3, the doctor called me with the news that Mr. Peterson was positive for COVID-19. Charlies' two roommates at Rock Fundwere immediately put under a quarantine order by Weld County.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-1 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
9. I contacted Parole and let them know about Charlie dying and having COVID-19. They assured me they would contact the Weld County Jail. The Coroner's staff also informed my staff that the virus and death would be reported to Weld County Jail.
10. We at Rock Fund are mourning the loss of our friend, our family member, Charlie Peterson. We await the end of the COVID-19 crisis so that we can have an end of life celebration for a man that worked so hard to redeem himself and create a better life.
11. I am so angry that Mr. Peterson got COVID-19 in the jail and even angrier that he was released when he was on his death bed, without any notice to us that he was even sick. I read in April 1 Greeley Tribune that the first Weld County inmate tested positive for COVID-19. That individual was reported to be in the jail since sometime in 2018. So, I know that wasn't Charlie. There has been nothing else in the paper about any other inmates testing positive in the jail. How could Weld County Jail have failed to tell the public and inmates and judges about Charlie's positive test and his ultimate death by the virus? I fear for the health of other inmates in the Weld County Jail and the community to whom many will be released.
Executed this 10th day of April, 2020.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-2 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT 2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-2 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH THOMAS CARRANZA, et al.
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER VECCHIARELLI
I, Christoper Vecchiarelli, declare under penalty of perjury under the law of Colorado that the following is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and information:
1. My name is Christoper Vecchiarelli. I am over the age of twenty-one and am otherwise competent to testify. I make the following statements based upon my personal knowledge.
2. I was incarcerated in the Weld County Jail starting on February 20, 2020 and was released on April 7, 2020. I was charged with driving while intoxicated. I was scheduled to be transferred to the work release program in March of 2020. Because the work release program was shut down, I was not transferred and continued to be incarcerated until a few days ago.
3. While I was in the Weld County Jail, I saw firsthand the lack of response to the corona virus outbreak. Until April, the Weld County Jail did absolutely nothing to protect inmates from the spread of the corona virus. It was business as usual.
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-2 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 5
4. I learned about the corona virus outbreak from my wife. Even when there was reporting in the Greeley Tribune that there were cases of corona virus in the Weld County Jail, deputies denied that there were and told inmates that the corona virus was not in the jail.
5. In April, Weld County Jail instituted a twenty-three hour a day lockdown. Even with this lockdown, all inmates in a pod still intermingled within feet of each other during the one hour a day we were let out into the common areas of the pod. Additionally, all inmates shared common toilets, sinks, and showers.
6. In my pod, there were forty-two inmates. In my cell, even after the lockdown, there were eight inmates total in a ten foot by fifteen foot cell. It was impossible to maintain a distance of six feet from other inmates.
7. While in the Weld County Jail, I obtained trustee status. As a trustee, my job was to work in the kitchen. I helped prepare meals and distribute them to other inmates from 12 p.m. to 7 p.m. every day.
8. As a trustee, I observed the food “safety” practices in the Weld County Jail. In the kitchen, we were provided one hundred gloves per shift (of seven hours) for twenty inmates. That meant that each inmate received, essentially, two sets of gloves per shift. If we asked for more gloves, the guards would deny our request. This meant that, when we brought food from pod to pod, we had to use the same gloves. There were also times when I was preparing food that I was forced to expose my bare forearms to food. When I was tasked with mixing salad for all of the inmates, the guards provided me with an industrial sized bowl and no utensils to mix the salad. The guards told me to reach my arm, up to my forearm, to mix the salad.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-2 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 5
9. Additionally, while working in the kitchen, I saw one trustee become severely ill and be forced to keep preparing food. That inmate had shortness of breath and vomiting for over a week, and he was forced to continue preparing food for all of the inmates in the jail. It was only after he passed out on the job on April 5, 2020, that he was allowed to stop working in the kitchen.
10. In fact, there were a number of inmates who were working in the kitchen with me, up until I left in April, that were sick and actively displaying symptoms of corona virus. They continued to prepare food.
11. As a trustee, I also observed the sanitation and hygiene practices in the jail. I saw that the hygiene practices did not change from before the outbreak. The shared toilets and sinks continued to be cleaned only once weekly, even in April after the lockdown. Even after the lockdown, inmates did not have access to hand sanitizes, lysoll wipes, or bleach. Trustees would use the same industrial cleaner that came out of the mop dispenser in the closet to clean other surfaces. Even after the lockdown, cells were not cleaned.
12. I also witnessed multiple guards tell anyone they saw with a mask to take it off. Masks were only provided to kitchen staff on April 6, 2020. Before that, inmates were preparing food without masks on.
13. When I was in the jail I saw many inmates displaying symptoms of corona virus. It seemed like a lot of inmates started getting sick in the beginning of March. Despite the fact that there were a large number of inmates who were sick, none of these inmates were quarantined. And, none of these inmates were tested for the virus.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-2 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 5
14. The only thing that guards asked inmates to ascertain whether they had corona virus was whether they had hiccups. Multiple guards asked me this question every day and told me that hiccups were a telltale sign that someone had the corona virus.
15. 1 also started having symptoms of corona virus and was not tested. This included shortness of breath and coughing. I continued working in the kitchen until the day I was released. I am a vulnerable person for corona virus as I have damage to my lungs from multiple pulmonary embolisms. I am currently seeking treatment for my symptoms and testing for the virus.
Christopher Vecchiarelli
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT 3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH THOMAS CARRANZA, et al.
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
DECLARATION OF RALPH BREWER
I, Ralph Brewer, declare under penalty of perjury under the law of Colorado that the following is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and information:
1. My name is Ralph Brewer. I am over the age of twenty-one and am otherwise competent to testify. I make the following statements based upon my personal knowledge.
2. I was incarcerated in the Weld County jail beginning on February 7, 2020 until I was released from my sentence ten days early, on April 3, 2020. During that time, I was serving a 90-day sentence.
3. At some point in early March, I was transferred to Larimer County jail for a hearing on another case. Upon return to Weld County jail, I was told by the guard in the intake pod that I would need to be placed in quarantine for 14 days due to my potential exposure to the virus while outside of the Weld County jail. The “quarantine” pod was the intake pod, also called the M pod.

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 6
4. I was told that being in quarantine meant that I would be in the cell with people who had come in on that same day or someone I had been housed with before. In other words, I wound not be housed with new people.
5. In fact, my “quarantine” only lasted 5 days and during that time I was moved around to several different cells and housed with many people who I had never seen before, including, at one point, two guys who had come in straight from the street on a different day than me.
6. We had to do everything in our cells, including eat our meals. There was no soap in our cell for at least the first 2-3 days. We had to continuously ask for more hygiene products, including soap.
7. When my “quarantine” ended early, I was told it was because the intake pod was full, and they needed the space for new people.
8. I had previously applied to be a trustee so that I could earn “good time” and be released early. I had been approved for trustee status, so around March 23, 2020, I was moved directly from the quarantine pod (9 days early) to the pod that housed all the jail’s trustees, called the TM pod.
9. In the TM pod, the inmates had to clean the bathrooms, including sinks, showers and toilets, and all the surfaces in the shared day room. The bathroom and the day room were used by approximately 35 inmates. The only supplies we were given was a broom, a mop, a mop bucket and some kind of spray. When I asked for gloves to use while cleaning, I was told, “those are not available to the inmates.”
10. Upon becoming a trustee, I was immediately assigned to work in the kitchen. My shift was every day from 12:30-7:00. I prepped food, prepared food trays,

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 6
and washed dishes. The only protection we were provided were gloves and a beard net. I was never given a mask.
11. After about four or five days of working in the kitchen, I began to feel sick. I was tired all the time and would only get out of bed to go to work in the kitchen. I began to feel like I had bronchitis in my chest.
12. I was so nauseous all the time that I stopped eating most of my meals and would give my tray of food away to the other inmates.
13. When the nurses came around to distribute medications, I explained my symptoms and was given Tylenol twice a day and some cough medicine. The medical staff was always complaining about how many inmates were in the med line and how much work they had to do.
14. I told one nurse that I wanted to have my lungs checked because I was feeling so sick and I really did not think that I could go to work. She said that she would come back and check on me. She never returned.
15. I repeatedly told the guards that I did not think that I could go to work because I really needed to rest. I was told by more than one guard that if I was not running a fever then I needed to be in the kitchen because they were short staffed.
16. I submitted kites seeking medical attention and the response that I received was that I should, “drink more fluids.”
17. That same week, while working in the kitchen, I told Jen, the Aramark employee who runs the kitchen, that I was feeling very sick and nauseous. She blew me off, saying, “well, if you throw up, just don’t flush the toilet so we can see it.”

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 6
18. During a walk-through, I told a guard that I really needed to see a nurse. The guard said that “if he had time” he would try to get a nurse to come check on me. I saw that guard later and complained again about not seeing a nurse. The guard said that he “forgot.”
19. Finally, on April 3, 2020, I saw the same guard and complained again that I still had not seen a nurse. I told him that I was really sick and upset and was going to file a grievance against medical if I did not get some help. The guard assured me that he would get someone to come check on me.
20. About two hours later, I was called out of the kitchen. I thought that I was finally going to see medical about my condition. Instead, I was told that I was being released ten days early.
21. My daughter picked me up from the jail and took me directly to urgent care. They told me that I have the symptoms of Covid-19 and prescribed me medication. They told me to quarantine myself for the next 14 days, which I am doing at my mother’s house in Fruita, Colorado.
22. Despite my efforts, I have not been able to obtain a test for the coronavirus.
s/ Ralph Brewer ___________________________ Ralph Brewer

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-3 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 6
I, Sara R. Neel, certify that I reviewed this declaration with Ralph Brewer by phone on April 13, 2020 and that he certified that the declaration was true and correct to the best of his knowledge. I am unable to meet in-person with Mr. Brewer as he is currently quarantined in his mother’s house in Fruita, Colorado. Mr. Brewer does not have access to a printer and scanner and because of his condition is not leaving the house.
___________________________________ Sara R. Neel, Senior Staff Attorney

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-4 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-4 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH THOMAS CARRANZA, et al.
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
DECLARATION OF THOMAS LEWIS
I, Thomas Lewis, declare under penalty of perjury under the law of Colorado that the following is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and information:
1. My name is Thomas Lewis and I am a plaintiff in this case. I am over the age of twenty-one and am otherwise competent to testify. I make the following statements based upon my personal knowledge.
2. I have been incarcerated in the Weld County jail since January 3, 2020. I cannot afford to pay the bond that is set, so I will continue to be held in the Weld County jail until at least my next court appearance in late May 2020.
3. I am 60 years-old and have vitiligo, which is an immune deficiency disease. Both my age and my disease make me particularly vulnerable to suffering severe effects from Covid-19. I am very worried about contracting the disease in the jail because of the lack of precautions that have been taken by the jail and my inability to properly physically distance myself from other inmates and guards.

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-4 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
4. Since the beginning of my incarceration, I have been housed in cell number 11 inside Pod C. My cell is approximately 8 feet by 10 feet. I currently share my cell with two other inmates. One of the other inmates in my cell is Richard Barnum, another plaintiff in this case, who has Hepatitis C and kidney disease.
5. Weld County put the inmates on 23- and 1-hour lockdown beginning on April 1, 2020. Based on the size of the cell and the configuration of the desks and bunk beds, we cannot physically distance ourselves six feet away from each other while in the cell. Therefore, for 23 hours per day, I am unable to practice the CDC recommended physical distancing. I am on the bottom bunk and at least one other another inmate is on the bunk right above me, about 1-2 feet away.
6. Medical staff comes around twice a day. Each time I obtain Tylenol from the medical staff for headaches.
7. Neither Weld County jail staff nor medical staff has ever asked me about whether I have underlying medical conditions that put me at a higher risk for serious illness for COVID-19.
8. Despite being 60 years-old and of higher risk to the disease, the only time that I have had my temperature taken is when I affirmatively requested it because I was developing a cough and was scared I had contracted the virus. The medical staff never followed up with me to see if I was ok or if my symptoms got any worse. Medical staff has only offered to take my temperature one other time, which was around approximately April 1, 2020.
9. Since the lockdown started on April 1, 2020, we have been required to eat all our meals in our cell. At mealtime, two inmates sit at the desks in our cell and one sits

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-4 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
on their bunk. The inmates who are sitting at the desks eating are essentially sitting shoulder to shoulder with the inmate on the bunk.
10. In Pod C, where I am housed, we share the bathrooms with about 50 other inmates. If I want to use cleaner when I go to the bathroom, I have to ask the deputy at the desk for the bottle of cleaner and check it out by providing the deputy with my inmate ID card which the deputy then returns to me when I bring back the bottle of cleaner.
11. I have never been encouraged by any guards to wipe down or clean the toilet or other bathroom surfaces before or after I use them. I don’t see other inmates regularly wiping down surfaces in the bathrooms. In fact, inmates from different cells are often in there for 5-10 minutes talking with each other in close proximity.
12. When I use the phone in the day room, I almost never see other inmates cleaning it after they use it.
s/ Thomas Lewis __________________________ Thomas Lewis I, Sara R. Neel, certify that I reviewed this declaration with Thomas Lewis by phone on April 13, 2020 and that he certified that the declaration was true and correct to the best of his knowledge. I am unable to meet in-person with Mr. Lewis as he is currently incarcerated in the Weld County jail and I am subject to Governor Polis's Executive Order restricting public travel and requiring physical distancing.
___________________________________ Sara R. Neel, Senior Staff Attorney

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-5 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-5 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
. . . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH THOMAS CARRANZA, et al.
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
DECLARATION OF HELEN GRIFFITHS
I, Helen Griffiths, declare under penalty of perjury under the law of Colorado that the following is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and information:
1. My name is Helen Griffiths. I am over the age of twenty-one and am otherwise competent to testify. I make the following statements based upon my personal knowledge.
2. I am employed as Public Policy Associate at the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado (ACLU). As part of my job, I sometimes assist in case investigations for the ACLU’s legal department under the supervision of an ACLU attorney.
3. On April 10, 2020, I worked under the supervision of ACLU attorney, Sara Neel, to assist in investigating facts related to this litigation. In that capacity, I conducted telephone interviews of six inmates incarcerated in the Weld County jail and asked them about conditions in the jail as of April 10.
4. In the remainder of this declaration, unless I indicate otherwise, I summarize the portions of those six conversations that were consistent between three or more of the inmates with whom who I talked.
5. All interviewed inmates said adequate physical distancing in the current conditions of the jail was impossible. Several inmates stated that the only way for feasible physical distancing would require single occupancy cells.
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-5 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
6. In the average cell, there are three to four inmates, and bunk beds are three beds high. The beds are only a few feet from each other. The Weld County jail currently does not assign inmates to sleep on the top bunk. Inmates sleep on the bottom two bunks, only a few feet away from inmates sleeping on the bottom beds of a neighboring bunk. Due to the 23-hour per day lockdown, the three to four inmates in the cell live, sleep and eat within a few feet of each other.
7. In some cells, there are healthy people and sick people bunking right next to each other. 8. New inmates are moving into general population after only a 5- to 8-day quarantine period. 9. There is no room for social distancing in the bathrooms. From one sink to another, there is less than a foot. The urinals are right next to each other. There are four toilets and four urinals for an entire pod of 40 or more people to use. There are no accommodations made for physical distancing in the bathroom. 10. Physical distancing is often not possible even when outside the cell. That is the time when inmates can use the phone, which has them sitting shoulder-to-shoulder. While out in the common spaces, inmates line up to receive meals and medication. While in those lines, 8-12 inmates stand right next to each other. When serving themselves drinks, the inmates do not have gloves. They all touch the same juice container and pour it into the same cup to measure the amount of drink they are allowed. 11. There is limited and irregular cleaning in the jail. The toilets and sinks are generally not disinfected between use. Several inmates referenced objects such as the hot water dispenser button and kiosk that are regularly touched but rarely, if ever, cleaned between uses. 12. The Weld County jail has made it difficult for inmates to practice proper hygiene. In order to wash their hands, inmates must be allowed out of their cells to use the bathroom. There are no hygiene options in many of the cells. 13. While inmates did receive masks very recently, they were told the mask they were given is the only mask they are allowed. They are only allowed to do laundry once a week.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-5 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
14. The Weld County jail staff has not sought to determine whether inmates have underlying medical conditions that make them a higher risk for serious illness or death for COVID-19. The staff is not interviewing inmates to determine who is high risk. The staff are not taking any special precautions to protect people who are older or have underlying health conditions from getting the virus. Medically vulnerable people are treated just the same as every other inmate.
15. Some inmates are not having their temperature taken daily and are not being asked if they have COVID-19 symptoms. Instead, some guards ask inmates to come forward if they think they have symptoms. Inmates are told that if they feel sick, they should fill out a kite and wait for “med line” so that a nurse can take their temperature.
16. Inmates have not been informed of the number of cases of COVID-19 there are in the Weld County jail. Inmates are required to ask guards and to rely on second-hand information.
17. Inmates are concerned that guards do not take the threat of COVID-19 seriously. The guards often congregate to talk and do not practice proper physical distancing. During cell inspections, inmates say only some guards wear gloves and they do not change gloves between rooms. Guards spent weeks dismissing potential COVID-19 symptoms of guards and inmates, and claiming it was just a typical cold circulating throughout the jail.
18. The conditions in the Weld County jail exacerbate the potential spread of COVID-19. At least three inmates expressed with utter certainty that, “If nothing is done, someone will die in here.”
Signed this day April 13, 2020
___________________________________ Helen Griffiths
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-6 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7
EXHIBIT 6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-6 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 7 Case 1:20-cv-21457-KMW Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2020 Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No.: 1:20-cv-21457-KMW ANTHONY SWAIN, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. DANIEL JUNIOR, et al.,
Defendants. /
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (DE 3). Defendants oppose the motion. To obtain either a temporary injunction or a preliminary injunction, a party must demonstrate that: “(1) it has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury will be suffered unless the injunction issues; (3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.” Wreal, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 840 F.3d 1244, 1247 (11th Cir. 2016). Based on the Court’s review of the record, relevant case law, and the Parties’ representations during the telephonic status conferences held April 6, 2020 and April 7, 2020, Plaintiffs have met that standard.
Accordingly, after consultation with the Parties, and for the reasons cited at the telephonic status conferences held April 6, 2020 and April 7, 2020 with all Parties present, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (DE 3) is GRANTED IN PART as follows:
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-6 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 7 Case 1:20-cv-21457-KMW Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2020 Page 2 of 6
1. It is ORDERED that by April 9, 2020, Defendants shall file under seal a list of all individuals who are currently detained at Metro West Detention Facility and who meet any of the criteria in paragraph three. This list shall be filed under seal to protect the confidential health information of those individuals and shall remain under seal pending further order by this Court.
2. It is further ORDERED that by April 9, 2020, Defendants shall file a notice describing the particular measures being employed to protect these individuals from the risk of COVID-19.1
3. The list of individuals shall include all of those currently detained at Metro West Detention Facility who meet any of the following criteria:
• Are 60 years of age or older; • Have chronic respiratory disease, including lung disease, moderate to
severe asthma, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (e.g. bronchitis or emphysema); • Have heart disease, such as congenital heart disease, congestive heart failure, or coronary artery disease; • Have chronic liver or kidney disease (including hepatitis and conditions requiring dialysis); • Have diabetes; • Have epilepsy; • Have diagnosed hypertension;
1 One of the lists required under Paragraph 1 or 2 shall be filed with the Court by 6:00 PM on April 9, 2020 and the other shall be filed by midnight on April 9, 2020.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-6 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 7 Case 1:20-cv-21457-KMW Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2020 Page 3 of 6
• Have a compromised immune system (such as from cancer, HIV, receipt of an organ or bone marrow transplant, as a side effect of medication, or other autoimmune disease);
• Have sickle cell disease; and/or • Are or have been pregnant within the last two weeks. 4. It is further ORDERED that Defendants shall take the following actions at the Metro West Detention Center: • Effectively communicate to all people incarcerated at Metro West Detention
Center, including low-literacy and non-English-speaking people, sufficient information about COVID-19, measures taken to reduce the risk of transmission, and any changes in policies or practices to reasonably ensure that individuals are able to take precautions to prevent infection; • To the maximum extent possible considering Metro West Detention Center’s current population level, provide adequate spacing of six feet or more between people incarcerated at Metro West so that social distancing can be accomplished; • Ensure that each incarcerated person receives, free of charge: (1) an individual supply of soap, preferably liquid as recommended by the CDC, sufficient to allow frequent hand washing each day, (2) hand drying machines, or disposable paper towels as recommended by the CDC, and individual towels, sufficient for daily use (3) an adequate supply of disinfectant products effective against the virus that causes COVID-19 for daily cleanings; and (4) an adequate supply of toilet paper sufficient for daily
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-6 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 7 Case 1:20-cv-21457-KMW Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2020 Page 4 of 6
use; • Provide reasonable access to showers and to clean laundry; • Require that all MDCR staff wear personal protective equipment, including
masks, and gloves when physically interacting with any person and require that, absent extraordinary or unusual circumstances, a new pair of gloves is worn each time MDCR staff touch a different person; and require all inmate workers who are cleaning facilities or preparing food to follow this same protocol; • Require that all MDCR staff regularly wash their hands with soap and water or use hand sanitizer containing at least 60% alcohol; • Ensure access to proper testing for anyone displaying known symptoms of COVID-19 in accordance with CDC guidelines; • Ensure that individuals identified as having COVID-19 or having been exposed to COVID-19 receive adequate medical care and are properly quarantined, with continued access to showers, mental health services, phone calling with family, and communications with counsel; individuals identified as having COVID-19 or having been exposed to COVID-19 shall not be placed in cells normally used for disciplinary confinement absent emergency circumstances; • Respond to all emergency (as defined by the medical community) requests for medical attention as soon as possible; • Provide sufficient disinfecting supplies consistent with CDC recommendations in each housing unit, free of charge, so incarcerated
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-6 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 7 Case 1:20-cv-21457-KMW Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2020 Page 5 of 6
people can clean high-touch areas or any other items in the unit between each use; • Waive all medical co-pays for those experiencing COVID-19-related symptoms; and • Waive all charges for medical grievances during this health crisis. 5. This Temporary Order is valid for a limited period of 14 days or until further order of this Court, or until Defendants demonstrate that they have substantially complied with this Order. The Court’s ruling is subject to change based on a more fully developed record at preliminary injunction proceedings. 6. For purposes of this Order, the Court accepted the allegations in the Complaint and its attachments as true without briefing or evidentiary submissions by Defendants; this Order does not make a finding of wrongdoing on the part of any defendant and no defendant has waived any defenses to this action. 7. If Defendants have not yet been served in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, Plaintiffs shall immediately provide a copy of this Order to Defendants. 8. A telephonic hearing on Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion (DE 3) for Preliminary Injunction is SET for April 21, 2020 at 1:00 PM. 9. Defendants shall file a response (not exceeding 35 pages) to Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion (DE 3) by April 16, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. Defendants need not file responses to any other pleading or motions until further order of the Court. Plaintiffs may file a reply by April 20, 2020 at 12:00 p.m.
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-6 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 7 Case 1:20-cv-21457-KMW Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2020 Page 6 of 6
DONE AND ORDERED in chambers in Miami, Florida, this 7th day of April, 2020.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-7 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11
EXHIBIT 7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-7 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 11
Supreme Court, New York County
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK EX REL. COREY STOUGHTON, ESQ., on behalf of
HOGAN JEFFREY, REGINALD JONES, MICHAEL COUCHON, SEKOU KANE, NELSON CORPORAN, JOSEPH BRYANT, CLAYTON BARRY, DOMINICK WILLIAMS, UCEFF WADE, CECILIA HOWARD, BRANDI FELCI, MARJORIE CHAMBERS, ALUDIEN MARKS, BRIGHTON MONTGOMERY, NICHOLAS KILGORE, JONATHAN PEREZ, EVA DOUBLERG,
KEITH JOHNSON, JASON BORRERO, PEDRO VINCENT BARCIA, ABDULLAH SPENCEREL, SERGIO BRUNO, DARLY BRITT, MALCOLM
DAWSON, BRIAN KING, ALLEN NANCE, CHRISTOPHER ANDRETTA, HERBERT BARRON, JOHN PIVETZ, GLEN SNYDER, SAMUEL SAEZ, and
TOLIB AKILOV, Petitioners, against
CYNTHIA BRANN, Commissioner, New York City Department of Correction; and ANTHONY ANNUCCI, Acting Commissioner, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondents.
Index No. 451078/2020
For Petitioners:
Lauren Gottesman, Esq. Mary Lynne Werlwas, Esq.
The Legal Aid Society
Robert Briere, Esq.
for Petitioner Nicholas Kilgore
For Respondents:
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-7 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 11
Martin Bowe, Esq. New York City Law Department for Respondent Cynthia Brann James Cooney, Esq. New York State Department of Law for Respondent Anthony Annucci Patricia Bailey, Esq. New York County District Attorney's Office for Respondents
Mark Dwyer, J.
Petitioners, 32 inmates at the Rikers Island prison, have demanded release on due process grounds. Each petitioner faces one or more charges in New York County. Many are also incarcerated pending hearings on alleged parole violations. Their complaint concerns the Covid19 pandemic. Petitioners contend that they are particularly vulnerable to serious injury and death should they contract the disease. And they assert that prisoners at Rikers are dangerously likely to contract it, to the point that continued confinement there violates their due process rights under the federal and state constitutions.
The only relief sought is release. The court will grant release, sometimes with conditions, to a fair number of petitioners. This opinion explains why. But this opinion will not do two other things. It will not describe the nature of the Covid-19 pandemic, as it is far too [*2]familiar to New Yorkers already. And it will deal with the circumstances of individual petitioners only briefly, as examples to explain particular points.
A
The health of prison inmates is the business of governments who incarcerate them. Indeed, it has long been settled that the United States Constitution requires the government to provide
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-7 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 11
effective medical care for inmates. Brown v. Plata, 563 US 493, 508-09 (2011); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 US 825, 832-33 (1994); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 US 97 (1976). These decisions involved convicted prisoners, and were decided under the Eighth Amendment. But the Due Process protections of the 5th and 14th Amendments and of the New York Constitution provide comparable protection to pretrial inmates. See, e.g., Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 US ___ (2015); Cooper v. Marin, 49 NY2d 69 (1979). That makes sense, as it could not be thought that pretrial detainees should enjoy less protection than convicted inmates. Contemporary law as to the rights of all prisoners simply "codif[ies] the commonlaw view that 'it is but just that the public be required to care for the prisoner, who cannot by reason of the deprivation of his liberty, care for himself.'" Estelle v. Gamble, 429 US at 103-04, supra.
To invoke the federal due process clause successfully, a petitioner may establish that the government's actions impose a serious, medically threatening condition on prisoners. Alternatively, and to the point here, the petitioner may show that the government failed to act "with reasonable care" to mitigate a risk created by a seriously threatening prison condition, even though the responsible authorities knew or should have known that the condition posed an excessive risk to the health or safety of the inmates. Helling v. McKinney, 509 US 25, 331-32 (1993). The cases differ on precisely how to interpret the mens rea requirement, and in particular on whether the prison officials must be aware of the danger. Compare Darnell v Pineiro, 849 F3d 17 (2nd Cir 2017) with Caiozzo v. Koreman, 581 F3d 63 (2nd Cir 2009). But the issue is moot here. There is no doubt that Rikers officials are aware of the Covid-19 threat. The New York due process test is simpler. A court weighs the benefit sought by the government from a condition against the harm that the condition imposes on inmates. Cooper v. Morin, 49 NY2d at 79, supra.
If the government cannot satisfy the due process requirement, the court must accord a remedy — including, where appropriate, release from prison. Brown v. Plata, 563 US at 511, supra. Courts "must not shrink from their obligation to 'enforce the constitutional rights of all , including prisoners.' Courts may not allow constitutional violations to continue simply because a remedy would involve intrusion into the realm of prison administration." Id. (citation
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-7 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 11
omitted). Notably, Brown itself approved an order requiring the release of numerous convicted California prisoners unless the state quickly relieved long-standing prison overcrowding that, inter alia, threatened the health of the inmates.
There can be no doubt that the presence of a communicable disease in a prison can constitute a serious, medically threatening condition. The point need not be belabored in this case. Covid-19 is at large at Rikers Island. The current epidemic poses a deadly threat to inmates, and its presence at the prison equates to an "unsafe, life-threatening condition" endangering "reasonable safety." See Helling v. McKinney, 509 US at 33, supra. Given such circumstances and the absence of a viable alternative, a court has no choice but to order release. Brown v. Plata, 563 US at 511, supra.
Respondents do not deny that much. They assert, however, that Corrections officials at Rikers Island have not been "deliberately indifferent" to the danger. To the contrary, they maintain, officials at Rikers have sought diligently to prevent the spread of the Covid-19 disease among the inmates. They assert that they have provided soap and cleaning supplies that allow petitioners and their fellow prisoners to protect themselves from the virus. They also urge the inmates to engage in "social distancing," i.e., to maintain a distance of six feet between themselves and other inmates. Some inmates have been released with the consent of the District Attorney. Thus, respondents assert, they have satisfied the constitutional mandate by taking "reasonable care" to mitigate the risk of the disease. It follows, they continue, that no due process violation has occurred, and no remedy is due petitioners.
B
This court disagrees. A look at the conditions at Rikers Island explains why.
First, communicable diseases could not ask for a better breeding ground than a crowded prison. Rikers facilities are crowded. Prisoners eat in communal dining rooms. Cooking is done by inmates and the food is dished out by inmates. Entertainment is found in common rooms.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-7 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 11
Many detainees reside in barracks-style dormitories. Many have a neighbor who sleeps less than six feet to the side. The inmates share sinks, showers, and toilets. Much of the space is so cramped that the inmates are physically unable to stay far enough from their fellow prisoners to be safe from the risk of contagion. Moreover, for many prisoners, a natural concomitant of confinement is a desire to associate in groups with one another. They communicate face-to-face, without the luxury of Skype or twitter. And, as elsewhere, even individuals without apparent Covid-19 symptoms can spread disease in all these areas and situations.
Beyond that, inmates in a local urban jail like Rikers are constantly exposed to additional potential sources of contagion. Arrests do not stop for a plague. New inmates arrive daily from around New York City. Every day, members of the prison staff commute to the prison from their homes in the city and its nearby suburbs. Until the epidemic hit this city, on five days a week inmates were taken in crowded and unsanitary buses to crowded and unsanitary courthouse holding pens.
Second, these conditions have produced the results one might expect. Diagnoses of the disease are "spiking" at Rikers — exponentially. As of March 20 it had reported that one case of the disease had been diagnosed at the prison. On March 21, 21 inmates and 17 members of the staff were reported ill from the virus, and one member of the staff was dead. By March 24, the day the petition was filed, there were a reported 39 cases. By April 1, 184 prisoners and 179 members of the staff were ill. As this opinion is being issued, the most recent report is that on April 2 there were 231 sick prisoners, in addition to 223 sick staff members. The rate of increase is about 5 times higher than that of New York City in general — and the rate in New York City, the national "epicenter" of Covid-19, has dramatically exceeded that of the rest of the country.
The New York City Board of Correction, established by the City Charter, is an independent oversight board charged with regulating, monitoring, and inspecting the city's correctional facilities. On March 21 the Board issued an advisory letter to judges and prosecutors calling for the release of prisoners over 50 years old who have conditions placing [*3]them at high risk if they contract Covid-19. Many of the petitioners are among those at risk. The Board's plea has since been joined by Ross MacDonald, the Chief Medical Officer of the Correctional Health
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-7 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 11
Services, and Rachel Bernard, a geriatrician at Rikers. For whatever it might be worth, the press reports that inmates feel helpless, with some suggesting that they are facing a "death sentence." And it is critically important to remember that petitioners have been convicted of nothing. They instead face contested charges.
Under the best of circumstances, there are far better places to be than Rikers Island. And these are not the best of circumstances.
C
Before the law is applied to the facts of this case, one final point should be made. The experts agree on the best practices to avoid the Covid-19 virus — frequent hand-washing, covering coughs and sneezes, social distancing, and so on. They also agree on this critical factor: the individuals who catch the disease face differing consequences. It was originally thought that the young rarely were in serious danger from the disease. That conclusion is now subject to serious doubt. But the experts agree that certain pre-existing conditions are aggravators.
Age is among them. Different estimates are given — age 50, 60, 65, 70 — as to when the calendar presents a special threat of harm from the virus. The current CDC number is 65. The different estimates are natural enough. Unlike the law, nature and its diseases do not respect a bright line crossed on a particular birthday. But it is agreed that infected individuals of a relatively advanced age are likely to suffer more than the young.
Age is not often thought of as a disease. The other conditions classified as aggravators are. Covid-19 attacks the respiratory system. Accordingly, pre-existing respiratory inhibitors like serious asthma or chronic lung disease can complicate a patient's Covid-19 symptoms. Combating the virus is a task for the immune system, and those afflicted with HIV or another condition that weakens the immune system can be at special risk. Covid-19 puts a strain on the heart, and therefore serious heart conditions can expose an individual to extra danger. Diabetics and those afflicted with some other diseases may have issues on more than one of these fronts.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-7 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 11
Petitioners do not argue that it violates due process to hold at Rikers a young prisoner who has no aggravating conditions. Instead, each contends that, while infection at Rikers is quite likely for all inmates, for those with aggravators the danger after Covid-19 strikes is much greater than the danger facing their fellows. Each petitioner claims to have one or more aggravating conditions. And each concludes that holding him or her at Rikers, where the prospect of Covid-19 infection is so great, must be deemed a violation of his or her rights.
D
The stage is set for consideration of how due process principles apply here. Respondents assert that they have taken "reasonable care" to mitigate the risk posed by Covid-19, and thus have satisfied the due process mandate. This court disagrees.
This judge does not at all question the good faith of the Rikers officials. Certainly no [*4]American prison is equipped to deal with a health crisis of the severity of this one. Rikers has medical facilities, but it is not a hospital — and this epidemic is a fierce challenge even for our hospitals. A crowded prison, for example, has no ability to quarantine the large number of prisoners exposed to inmates who eventually display symptoms. Indeed, in this case that would essentially mean a quarantine of everyone at the prison, inmates and staff. There certainly are not the necessary kits to administer tests for the disease to all inmates, much less the repeated tests required to assess their condition at subsequent times. And the ability to allow adequate distance to be maintained among detainees and staff is decisively precluded by the nature of prison construction and operation — as noted, for example, barracks-like sleeping quarters and communal dining. Even hand sanitizer, now a staple tool for preventing spread of the disease, cannot be employed: its alcohol content makes it contraband, a danger to prisoners who might drink it and to guards who, because the alcohol content is high, fear that it can we used as a weapon.
Due process does not excuse prison officials who mean well, but have no effective way to protect inmates from potentially fatal epidemics. Again, prison officials are obliged to take
7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-7 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 11
"reasonable care" to mitigate the risk posed by Covid-19. That is so especially for prisoners who can fairly expect extremely serious consequences if they contract the disease. "Reasonable care" and "mitigation" obligations are not satisfied by tossing a bucket of water on a four-alarm house fire, or by placing a band-Aid on a compound bone fracture. Reasonable care to mitigate must include an effort to employ an effective ameliorative measure. As would be expected when the Department of Corrections' own doctors ask for release, the escalating numbers of the infected show that what Rikers has done is not remotely effective. Prisoners with dangerous conditions are dramatically at risk. For some of them, only release can offer protection.
At this point, the court has ruled that 18 petitioners are in this category. (A few other petitioners have been released on consent or on bail). All 18 are afflicted with conditions acknowledged to endanger them: heart disease, serious respiratory conditions, cancer, diabetes, uncontrolled HIV, and so forth. For some of them, the condition or conditions are more dangerous because those prisoners are relatively old. Those 18 petitioners have been ordered released.
For others, the petition has been denied. Some of the inmates are between 50 and 60 years old, and have nothing beyond that to suggest that they are in more danger than the average inmate. This judge does not believe that to be sufficient to justify release. One petitioner also has glaucoma; that ocular condition is not reported to complicate Covid-19. One has HIV, but the condition is well controlled. The petitioner's viral count is easily low enough, and the T-cell count high enough, to take the condition out of the category of an enhanced threat. One petitioner was convincingly shown by his medical history to be a malingerer, in no special danger at all.
These are not normal times. Courthouses are almost completely closed. Staffing is short — judges, court officers, court reporters, clerks, and IT employees. The ability of Rikers Island officials to arrange internet conferences with inmates is very limited. Medical records are not available. Expert medical witnesses are, to say the least, occupied. But the claims of these petitioners, and hundreds of other inmates who believe they are in immediate danger, deserve to [*5]be treated as emergency questions for courts and other officials who can grant release. Perhaps two months from now, when the disease has abated, the courtrooms will reopen, weeks
8

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-7 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 11
can be spent marshaling evidence, and cross-examinations can be conducted. But there is no time to wait — the issues will be moot. The court's conclusions about inmate conditions had to be based on the records available to the parties, the lawyers' phone calls to busy experts, work on the internet, and Skype conversations held in the absence of affected petitioners.
Three final notes should be made. First, for a court to order a release of prisoners on account of a due process violation is "a matter of undoubted, grave concern." Brown v. Plata, 563 US at 501, supra. Still, this judge does not believe that release can be denied even to those charged with violent crimes if they are at substantial risk of death or other serious physical injury. Such inmates have the same due process rights as others. They may be treated differently from others, even in a pretrial context. Some can be shackled. Some can be subjected to unusual intrusions on privacy. Some can be isolated from other inmates. Even under New York law, some charges justify assessments of dangerousness that can lead to higher bail or remand. But these prisoners cannot be punished with the unnecessary exposure to a highly communicable, and for them a potentially deadly, disease. Thus, one of the inmates ordered released is a man who is over 60, suffers from very serious heart conditions, has a chronic obstructive pulmonary condition as well as asthma, is diabetic — and is charged with a vicious murder.
Second, and relatedly, what has been ordered for petitioners is temporary release. No charges are being dismissed. The inmates facing criminal charges will still face those charges. The inmates on parole will remain on parole, and the relevant parole violation allegations can be pursued. Moreover, the court has agreed with restrictions on release suggested by the government. For example, for some petitioners home confinement except for visits to mental health services has been directed. The petitioners cannot legitimately complain; at least they will not be confined on Rikers Island.
Finally, the petition sought relief only on the ground that the petitioners are in special danger if they become infected. Nothing in this opinion necessarily applies to how inmates without such conditions should be treated.
9

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-7 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 11

ENTER:
Dated: New York, New York April 6, 2020 ________________________ Mark Dwyer, J.
Appearances of Counsel:

Return to Decision List

10

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-8 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 12
EXHIBIT 8

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-8 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v. GERALD FRANK PLUNK,
Defendant.

Case No. 3:94-cr-00036-TMB
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE AND
COMPASSIONATE RELEASE [DKT. 711]

I. INTRODUCTION The matter comes before the Court on Defendant Gerald Frank Plunk’s Motion for Reduction of Sentence to Time Served and Compassionate Release from Prison Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)(ii) (the “Motion”).1 The Government filed an Unopposed Motion for Stay in response and requested a telephonic status conference.2 The Motion for Stay was granted and a telephonic status conference set for April 9, 2020.3 Before the status conference, the Government filed a Response to Motion for Sentence Reduction-Conditional Non-Opposition (“Response”).4 Now, having held the status conference and lifted the stay, the Motion is ripe for resolution. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is GRANTED.

1 Dkt. 711 (Motion). 2 Dkt. 724 (Motion). 3 Dkt. 726 (Text Order). 4 Dkt. 727 (Response).
1 Case 3:94-cr-00036-TMB Document 733 Filed 04/09/20 Page 1 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-8 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 12
II. BACKGROUND Defendant has been in federal custody since his voluntary surrender on March 25, 1994.5 He was tried and found guilty of one count of Conspiracy to Distribute Cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 846, four counts of Use of a Communications Facility in violation of 21 U.S.C.§ 843(b), and one count of Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).6 On November 18, 1996, Judge John W. Sedwick sentenced Defendant to two concurrent life terms under the then-mandatory sentencing guidelines.7 On September 4, 2019, Defendant filed “Defendant’s Pro Se Motion for Reduction of Sentence and Release from Prison Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)” (“Pro Se Motion”).8 Defendant signed the Pro Se Motion under “Pro Se Representation” and reaffirmed his alleged pro se status in the attached Certification of Service.9 On September 6, 2019, defense counsel filed “Counsel’s Notice of Joinder to Motion to Reduce Sentence (Dkt 703),” in which Attorney Weidner notifies the Court that he represents Defendant and joins in Defendant’s Motion for Release.10 The Court explained that Defendant cannot file on his own behalf while he is represented by counsel and denied the Pro Se Motion without prejudice.11 Defendant, through counsel, did not refile any motion seeking to reduce his sentence until the present Motion.
5 Id. at 9. 6 Id. at 9‒10. 7 Id. at 10. 8 Dkt. 703 (Motion). 9 Id. at 9, 11. 10 Dkt. 704 (Notice of Joinder). 11 Dkt. 709 (Order).
2 Case 3:94-cr-00036-TMB Document 733 Filed 04/09/20 Page 2 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-8 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 12
On April 1 2020, Defendant filed the Motion requesting the Court reduce his sentence to time served and granting compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and (ii).12 Defendant argues for release based on both “extraordinary and compelling reasons” and “his age, medical condition and length of incarceration . . . as well as the dangers he now faces as an inmate . . . due to the ongoing national COVID-19 Pandemic and [his] status as a ‘potential high risk victim’ given his advanced age and medical condition.”
The Government initially responded by filing a Motion for Stay.13 The Motion for Stay explains that the parties are “discussing the merits of the substantive motions and have been attempting to arrive at a mutually satisfactory resolution.”14 The Government further represents that “[t]his matter is currently before the Deputy Attorney General for consideration” and that “[w]ithin the Department of Justice, the United States Attorney, District of Alaska, does not have final authority, without designation or authorization to settle the pending matter.”15 The Government then filed the Response, which states that the Government has considered the merits of the Motion and concludes that it does not oppose Defendant’s release on certain conditions.16
On April 9, 2020, at the joint request of the Parties, the Court held a telephonic status conference. During the conference, the Parties explained that they had reached an amicable resolution and jointly recommended release. Furthermore, the Court made oral rulings from the bench denying Defendant’s Request for Assignment to Judge John W. Sedwick and/or Voluntary
12 Dkt. 711 at 1. 13 Dkt. 724. 14 Id. at 2. 15 Id. 16 Dkt. 727 at 3‒4.
3 Case 3:94-cr-00036-TMB Document 733 Filed 04/09/20 Page 3 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-8 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 12
Recusal of Judge Timothy M. Burgess and lifting the stay that was previously granted on the Government’s Unopposed Motion for Stay.17
III. LEGAL STANDARD The First Step Act amended 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) to allow a defendant to move the district court for compassionate release after exhausting the Bureau of Prisons’ administrative process.18 Then, after considering the applicable factors set forth in § 3553(a), the court may grant the motion if it finds that: (i) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction; or (ii) the defendant is at least 70 years of age, has served at least 30 years in prison, pursuant to a sentence imposed under section 3559(c), for the offense or offenses for which the defendant is currently imprisoned, and a determination has been made by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons that the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or the community, as provided under section 3142(g); and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.
IV. ANALYSIS Even though Defendant moves for release under both prongs of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), the Court finds that the extraordinary and compelling reasons of the first prong suffice to grant Defendant’s Motion and so limits the following analysis solely to that basis.19
17 See Dkts. 715 (Request); 724; 726. 18 See Pub. L. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5239 (2018); 19 Defendant has not actually served “at least 30 years in prison” to qualify for release under the second prong, § 3582(c)(1)(A)(ii). Nonetheless, Defendant does meet the age and custodial length considered to be extraordinary and compelling reasons for release under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13.
4 Case 3:94-cr-00036-TMB Document 733 Filed 04/09/20 Page 4 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-8 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 12
A. Exhaustion of the Bureau of Prisons’ Administrative Process Section 3582(c)(1)(A) confers jurisdiction over compassionate release motions to the
district court after the defendant exhausts the BOP’s administrative process. “Exhaustion occurs when the BOP denies a defendant’s application or lets thirty days pass without responding to it.”20 Here, Defendant has previously submitted two written requests for compassionate release to his wardens.21 His most recent request was submitted to the warden on January 14, 2019.22 More than 30 days have passed since receipt of that request and so this Court has jurisdiction to hear this Motion.
B. The 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Factors The sentencing factors listed under § 3553(a) help the court impose a sentence that is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary . . . (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, and other correctional treatment in the most effective manner.” In this case, reducing Defendant’s sentence to time-served to effectuate an immediate
compassionate release fulfills the § 3553(a) considerations. Defendant has been in prison for over 26 years. The Court recognizes the seriousness of his drug trafficking offenses and his history and characteristics at the time of sentencing. However, the nature and circumstances of the offenses were non-violent and his criminal history was significantly less serious than the criminal history
20 United States v. Mondaca, Case No.: 89-CR-0655 DMS, 2020 WL 1029024, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2020) (internal quotations omitted). 21 See Dkts. 711-1 (Request); 711-5 (Request). 22 Dkt. 711-1 at 3.
5 Case 3:94-cr-00036-TMB Document 733 Filed 04/09/20 Page 5 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-8 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 12
category may have suggested.23 Furthermore, Defendant was sentenced by Judge Sedwick at a time when the sentencing guidelines were mandatory. In 2015, when Defendant had served approximately 21 years of his sentence, Judge Sedwick wrote to President Obama to support Defendant’s commutation petition.24 Judge Sedwick explained in that letter that he lacked discretion in imposing a life sentence and that he doubted Defendant would receive “more time than he has already served” if sentenced at the time of the letter.25 Nearly five years later, this Court finds that the 26 year sentence Defendant has served to date is sufficient to address the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, deter Defendant and others, provide just punishment, and protect the public. Therefore, reducing Defendant’s sentence and granting the Motion is consistent with the factors set forth in § 3553(a).
C. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons The applicable policy statement issued by the United States Sentencing Commission,
§ 1B1.13 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”), explains that extraordinary and compelling reasons exist when the defendant is “(I) suffering from a serious physical or medical condition” or “(III) experiencing deteriorating physical or mental health because of the aging process.”26 Extraordinary and compelling reasons also exist when the
23 According to the Presentence Report (PSR), Defendant received two criminal history points for two prior alcohol-related driving offenses and an additional two points for being on probation for those driving offenses when he committed the federal drug offenses. Hence, the four criminal history points placed Defendant in criminal history category III. However, in the Statement of Reasons when adopting the PSR, Judge Sedwick found that the correct total of criminal history points was only two and defendant’s criminal history most closely resembled a criminal history category I. Dkt. 711-6 at 4. 24 Dkt. 711-2 (Letter). 25 Id. at 2‒3. 26 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A)(ii) (U.S. Sentencing Comm’n 2018).
6 Case 3:94-cr-00036-TMB Document 733 Filed 04/09/20 Page 6 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-8 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 12
defendant “(i) is at least 65 years old; (ii) is experiencing a serious deterioration in physical or mental health because of the ageing process; and (iii) has served at least 10 years or 75 percent of his or her term of imprisonment, whichever is less.”27 Section 1B1.13 imposes an additional consideration of whether the defendant is a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community.28
In this case, Defendant qualifies for compassionate release due to his medical conditions and age, particularly in light of the ongoing coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, and time spent in custody, as well as his remarkable history of rehabilitation while in custody and several prior recommendations by his wardens, the U.S. Probation office, and Judge Sedwick to reduce or commute his sentence. It is clear on the record that Defendant is not a danger to the community and the Motion should be granted.
1. Medical Condition of the Defendant USSG § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A)(ii) specifically considers the medical condition of the defendant as a circumstance under which extraordinary and compelling reasons exist to warrant the defendant’s compassionate release. Here, Defendant qualifies because he is “experiencing deteriorating physical or mental health because of the aging process.”29 Defendant states that “[t]he cartilage around his knee, hip, and shoulder joints is severely worn-down causing bone on bone contact and severe pain. He has lower back pain due to moderate to severe deterioration of his lumbar spinal discs. He also has arthritis in his wrists and hands, high blood pressure, a swollen prostate, age related eyesight and hearing loss, and suffers from post herpetic neuralgia (a
27 Id. at cmt. n.1(B). 28 Id. § 1B1.13(2). 29 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A)(ii)(III).
7 Case 3:94-cr-00036-TMB Document 733 Filed 04/09/20 Page 7 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-8 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 12
complication of the shingles virus for which there is no cure).”30 In addition, Defendant is over 70 years old and thus within the age group that the Center for Disease Control recognizes as being at higher risk for severe illness, such as COVID-19.31 The Court finds that COVID-19 presents a clear and present danger for individuals who are in custody.32 If COVID-19 reaches Defendant’s custodial facility, his ability to follow recommended self-care and public health guidance is substantially diminished by the restrictions inherent to his environment.33 Notwithstanding, Defendant is not expected to recover from deteriorating health because of the aging process.34 Therefore, Defendant has presented extraordinary and compelling reasons based on medical conditions in support of his Motion.
2. Age of the Defendant In addition to experiencing serious deterioration in physical or mental health because of the aging process, USSG § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(B) considers extraordinary and compelling reasons for release exist when defendants are “at least 65 years old” and have “served 10 years or 75 percent of his or her term of imprisonment, whichever is less.” Here, Defendant falls squarely within these qualifications. He is over 70 years old and has served over 26 years in prison. As
30 Dkt. 711 at 17‒18. 31 Center for Disease Control, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), People Who Are at Higher Risk, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/older-adults.html (last visited Apr. 7, 2020). 32 See Federal Bureau of Prisons, COVID-19 Coronavirus, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/ (tracking the number of COVID-19 cases in BOP facilities on a daily basis) (last visited Apr. 9, 2020). 33 See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A)(ii). 34 See id.
8 Case 3:94-cr-00036-TMB Document 733 Filed 04/09/20 Page 8 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-8 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 12
described above, he meets the requisite medical conditions for release. Therefore, Defendant has again presented extraordinary and compelling reasons to support his Motion.
3. Other Reasons USSG § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(D) permits the consideration of other extraordinary and compelling reasons “[a]s determined by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons.” Even without the prerequisite determination by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, several factors in Defendant’s case warrant discussion here. First, Judge Sedwick, the sentencing judge, has written to support the commutation of Defendant’s sentence.35 Second, two wardens and an assistant director of the Department of Justice Correctional Programs Division have also written to recommend Defendant for sentence reduction.36 Each authority has recognized that Defendant meets the criteria for sentence reduction, is not a risk to the community, or a risk of reoffending.37 Third, Defendant has obtained significant education and vocational certifications while in custody and now even trains other inmates.38 The BOP staff at his current facility praised Defendant, stating “Plunk sets the example in many ways and it is evident in the way he has embraced his current condition and encourages others to maintain a positive outlook on life. . . he has learned from his mistakes and will be a great assets to others in and out of prison.”39 More recently, the staff noted, “Inmate Plunk has been a model inmate while incarcerated at FCI Jesup.”40 The recommendation letters,
35 Dkt. 711-2. 36 Dkts. 711-3 (Letter); 711-4 (Letter); 711-7 (Letter). 37 Dkts. 711-2 at 2‒3; 711-3 at 2, 4; 711-4 at 2; 711-7 at 2. 38 See 711-11 (Certifications); 711-12 (Summary Reentry Plan). 39 Dkt. 711-12 at 5. 40 Dkt. 711-13 at 5.
9 Case 3:94-cr-00036-TMB Document 733 Filed 04/09/20 Page 9 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-8 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 12
achievement certifications, and staff evaluations clearly support that Defendant has taken his rehabilitation seriously and that presents other reasons worth consideration for release.
4. Danger to Others or the Community Finally, a court must consider the “nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community” that the defendant’s release would pose.41 The Court finds that many of the foregoing reasons weigh heavily in favor of Defendant. His age, medical conditions, and rehabilitative achievements all demonstrate that Defendant would not be a danger to any person or the community. Furthermore, Defendant as a verified release plan and proposes living with his sister in California. A U.S. Probation Officer has approved that residence and acknowledged, “considering his personal characteristics and criminal history, it does not appear that [Defendant] poses a third party risk to any specific individual/entity as a result of his residence.”42 Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant is not a danger to any person or community upon release.
41 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13(2) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)). 42 Dkt. 711-15 at 2.
10 Case 3:94-cr-00036-TMB Document 733 Filed 04/09/20 Page 10 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 28-8 Filed 04/13/20 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 12
V. CONCLUSION Therefore, the Court finds that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, extraordinary and compelling reasons under 18 U.S.C § 3582(c)(1)(A) and USSG § 1B1.13, and consideration of the applicable U.S. Sentencing Commission policies warrant Defendant’s immediate compassionate release. Furthermore, upon release, Defendant will not post a danger to any person or the community under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). Accordingly, the Motion at Docket 711 is GRANTED. Defendant shall be released from BOP custody as soon as the release plan is implemented, and travel arrangements made. The corresponding Judgment shall be issued forthwith. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Anchorage, Alaska, this 9th day of April, 2020. /s/ Timothy M. Burgess TIMOTHY M. BURGESS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11 Case 3:94-cr-00036-TMB Document 733 Filed 04/09/20 Page 11 of 11

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 31 Filed 04/17/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH THOMAS CARRANZA, et al.
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR LIMITED EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
Plaintiffs, by and through undersigned counsel, submit this emergency motion for limited expedited discovery from Defendant Reams under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1). As set forth below, Plaintiffs have good cause for targeted discovery in support of the preliminary injunction. See Advantage Sales & Mktg. LLC v. Gold, No. 18-CV-00312-RM, 2018 WL 6252781, at *1 (D. Colo. Feb. 13, 2018) (granting narrowly tailored expedited discovery in support of preliminary injunction).
Specifically, Plaintiffs seek an order requiring Defendant to produce or make available for inspection the following narrowly tailored discovery in advance of the preliminary injunction hearing:
1. An inspection of the Weld County jail by Plaintiffs’ medical expert on Friday, April 24, 2020;
2. A daily report, from Saturday, April 11 through the date of the preliminary injunction hearing, of the total count of individuals in any and all isolation and quarantine units in the jail;
3. A daily report, from Saturday, April 11 through the date of the preliminary injunction hearing, of the total count of individuals at the jail who have tested

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 31 Filed 04/17/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 11
positive for COVID-19, or who are being treated as presumptively positive based on their symptoms; and 4. Copies of all policies and procedures issued by Defendant concerning COVID19, including any policies or procedures to protect individuals in the jail from COVID-19, with supplements to Plaintiffs as those policies are updated through the date of the preliminary injunction hearing.
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL Defendant objects to the relief requested. Defendant has indicated he would provide some but not all of the requested discovery in exchange for a set of demands including demands unrelated to discovery and to which Plaintiffs would not agree. The parties conferred via email. Counsel for plaintiffs has requested multiple times to have a telephone call to confer about this and other issues, but counsel for Defendant refuses to engage in telephonic conferral.
BACKGROUND 1. On April 7, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Expedited Hearing, see Doc. 1, and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief, see Doc. 7. This is a putative class action. Plaintiffs have alleged, with substantial basis, a grave and urgent threat to the health and safety of vulnerable people detained in Weld County jail (“jail”) relating to an outbreak of COVID-19 in the facility, and the failure of Defendant Reams to reasonably protect those under his care. Plaintiffs are representative of the class of persons highly vulnerable to serious illness or death from the virus, including those over 55 years of age, and people with pre-existing health conditions. 2. On April 8, 2020, Plaintiffs’ counsel conferred with defense counsel to request that Plaintiffs’ medical expert be permitted to inspect the jail. The parties conferred and reached an agreement that complied with Defendant’s security concerns and would not disrupt the jail’s operations. The inspection took place on April 10, 2020, and was conducted by University of
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 31 Filed 04/17/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 11
Colorado Associate Professor of Medicine Carlos Franco-Paredes, MD, MPH. Representatives of the County participated, as well as a member of Plaintiffs’ legal team.
3. Defendant submitted his Response to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Expedited Hearing on April 13. Doc. 26. Defendant Reams claims, in short, to have appropriately responded to the COVID-19 epidemic. Needless to say, the parties vigorously dispute the facts.
4. Plaintiffs have continued to investigate this matter and anticipate presenting evidence that, rather than ensure constitutional treatment of Plaintiffs and those under his care, Defendant Reams deliberately failed to take the COVID-19 crisis seriously, he cavalierly ignored public health protocols, and he scoffed at guidance from Governor Polis and the experts. By the time he did begin to take precautions, it was too late—an outbreak in his jail festered and spread, endangering Plaintiffs and the putative class.
5. Tragically, Plaintiffs have learned that a vulnerable detainee in Weld County jail, Charles Peterson, contracted the COVID-19 virus in the jail and died shortly after his early release from the jail. See Doc. 28. As of April 10, 2020, at least 14 inmates have been either confirmed or presumed positive for COVID-19.
6. Plaintiffs and their counsel acknowledge recent attempts by Defendant to improve his failed response to the COVID-19 crisis. As a result, Plaintiffs voluntarily moved to withdraw the motion for a temporary restraining order, Doc. 29, which the Court granted, Doc. 30. In its minute order, the Court noted the parties’ substantial progress toward resolving the dispute, and set the matter for a preliminary injunction hearing via video teleconference the week of April 27, 2020. Doc. 30.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 31 Filed 04/17/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 11
7. Although the parties have made progress, significant factual disputes remain to be resolved at the hearing. Plaintiffs dispute that Defendant Reams implemented adequate precautions consistent with the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and the putative class they represent. Indeed, Plaintiffs have identified multiple individuals—named Plaintiffs and other witnesses—who contradict the Defendant’s claims. See, e.g., Docs. 1-1 (Exhibits 1-4); Docs. 281 (Exhibits 1-8).
8. Moreover, Defendant Reams’ dismal track record in responding to COVID-19, and his cavalier and dismissive statements regarding the deadly virus, place his credibility squarely at issue in this litigation. Plaintiffs cannot take Defendant Reams’ declaration at face value and are entitled to seek limited discovery.
9. The discovery sought is narrowly tailored to support the relief requested. First, Plaintiffs seek to re-inspect the jail to observe current conditions, to obtain evidence of any changes since April 10, and to investigate whether the claims of Defendant Reams in his declaration are accurate.
10. Second, Plaintiffs seek updated evidence of the number of individuals held in isolation or quarantine on a daily basis. This evidence is relevant to whether the measures in place at the time of the April 10 inspection are succeeding in protecting the Plaintiffs and the putative class and in containing the spread of the virus within the jail.
11. Third, Plaintiffs seek updated evidence of the number of people confirmed positive for COVID-19, or presumptively positive due to symptoms. Again, this information is highly relevant to whether Defendant is adequately containing the outbreak of COVID-19 in the jail, of critical importance to the safety of Plaintiffs and the class.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 31 Filed 04/17/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 11
12. Fourth, Plaintiffs seek relevant policies and procedures regarding Defendant’s response to the COVID-19 crisis. This information is of critical importance to the preliminary relief requested because it will show Defendants action and inaction in response to the pandemic, the timing of the issuance of these policies, and whether the policies are adequate to protect Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
13. After repeatedly—and publicly—dismissing the dangers of COVID-19 and allowing the virus to run rampant in his facility, resulting in the death of at least one man and widespread contagion, Defendant Reams now claims to be taking adequate precautions. That remains to be seen. Plaintiffs seek targeted, limited discovery to ascertain whether the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and the class are being protected. The Court should grant the motion.
ARGUMENT “Expedited discovery is permitted on a showing of good cause provided that the discovery is ‘narrowly tailored to seek information necessary to support expedited or preliminary relief.’” Advantage Sales & Mktg. LLC v. Gold, No. 18-CV-00312-RM, 2018 WL 6252781, at *1 (D. Colo. Feb. 13, 2018) (internal cite omitted); see also Qwest Commc'ns Int'l, Inc. v. WorldQuest Networks, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 418, 419 (D. Colo. 2003) (noting “good cause standard may be satisfied where a party seeks a preliminary injunction”). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) permits early discovery when authorized “by court order,” and district courts issue such orders when justified by “good cause.” Pod-Ners, LLC v. N. Feed & Bean of Lucerne Liab. Co., 204 F.R.D. 675, 676 (D. Colo. 2002) (“Rule 26(d), Fed. R. Civ. P., allows me to order expedited discovery upon a showing of good cause.”).
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 31 Filed 04/17/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 11
Obtaining relevant evidence in possession of the Defendant for presentation at a hearing on preliminary relief constitutes “good cause.” Advantage, 2018 WL 6252781 at *1. This conclusion is supported by Commentary to Rule 26(d), which states that discovery can begin early, and that “[t]his will be appropriate in some cases, such as those involving requests for a preliminary injunction …..” See also Advantage, 2018 WL 6252781 at *1 (relying on Commentary). As reasoned by the Court in Advantage, when granting limited expedited discovery in this scenario, “[i]n order for all parties to be properly prepared for that [preliminary injunction] hearing, in terms of the submission of evidence, some form of limited discovery will need to take place beforehand.” Id.
Courts in other jurisdictions similarly conclude that early discovery is appropriate for presentation at a preliminary injunction hearing. See, e.g., Midwest Sign & Screen Printing Supply Co. v. Dalpe, 386 F. Supp. 3d 1037, 1057 (D. Minn. 2019) ("The purpose of expedited discovery in the context of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is for further development of the record before the preliminary injunction hearing, which better enables the court to judge the parties' interests and respective chances for success on the merits."); Irish Lesbian & Gay Org. v. Giuliani, 918 F. Supp. 728, 731 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (good cause to grant discovery related "to the specific issues that will have to be determined at the preliminary injunction hearing.").
Here, the Court should grant Plaintiffs’ motion. Plaintiffs have made a small number of narrowly tailored requests which are not unduly burdensome nor impracticable, and which seek relevant evidence. Request (1), an inspection of the jail, is authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(2), and an expert inspection of the facility close in time to the hearing will assist the Court’s analysis. See, e.g., United States v. Erie Cty., NY, No. 09-CV-849S, 2010 WL
6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 31 Filed 04/17/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 11
986505, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2010) (unreported) (granting expedited motion to inspect jail). The parties have already agreed to security protocols for the inspection which were used on April 10, and those same protocols should be used for the reinspection.
For instance, after inspection the expert may be able to opine as to whether Defendant Reams’ attempted response to the COVID-19 outbreak is adequate, whether and which parts of the facility still pose unacceptable risks to Plaintiffs, and whether additional precautions and actions must be taken by the Defendant, as well as myriad other relevant evidence. Although an inspection occurred by agreement on April 10, it is critical that Plaintiffs have the opportunity to present evidence regarding the state of the facility as it is as of the time of the preliminary injunction hearing, and to investigate whether the belated precautions implemented by Defendant Reams as of April 10 have been kept in place, and whether they are succeeding in containing the spread of the virus.
Plaintiffs’ other requests seek discovery relevant to whether they face irreparable harm in the form of infection and possible death from COVID-19, and whether Defendant Reams’ actions are adequately protecting them. See, e.g., Jones’El v. Berge, 164 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (W.D. Wisc. 2001) (“[P]ain, suffering and the risk of death constitute ‘irreparable harm’ sufficient to support a preliminary injunction in prison cases.”). Specifically, Requests (2) and (3) regard whether the jail is adequately isolating individuals, and whether the COVID-19 outbreak in the facility is worsening or not over time, all of which is highly relevant to the question of whether Plaintiffs are being adequately protected or not, and whether the outbreak in the facility is worsening.
Finally, Request (4), for Defendant’s policies and procedures regarding COVID-19, is narrowly tailored to the relief sought, and highly relevant. Whether Defendant has implemented
7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 31 Filed 04/17/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 11
adequate policies and procedures in response to the COVID-19 crisis is obviously relevant to whether Plaintiffs’ face irreparable harm. It is Defendant’s duty to take “reasonable measures to guarantee the safety” of Plaintiffs and the class, Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994), and any policies and procedure regarding COVID-19 will reveal what measures he has in fact taken, and whether he is complying with his own written policies. See, e.g., Hernandez v. Cty. of Monterey, 110 F. Supp. 3d 929, 943 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (policies and procedures fell below the standard of care).
The Court should grant the motion because Plaintiffs seek “narrowly tailored” discovery to support their requested preliminary relief. Advantage, 2018 WL 6252781 at *1. Therefore, “good cause” is shown and the Court should issue an order pursuant to Rule 26(d)(1).
CONCLUSION Plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause for limited immediate discovery in support of the preliminary relief requested. The Court should grant the motion and order Defendant Steve Reams to produce the following discovery: 1. An inspection of the Weld County jail by an independent medical expert on
Friday, April 24, 2020, using the same protocols as those used for the April 10, 2020 inspection; 2. A daily report, from Saturday, April 11 through the date of the preliminary injunction hearing, of the total count of individuals in any and all isolation and quarantine units in the jail; 3. A daily report, from Saturday, April 11 through the date of the preliminary injunction hearing, of the total count of individuals at the jail who have tested positive for COVID-19, or who are being treated as presumptively positive based on their symptoms; and 4. Copies of all policies and procedures issued by Defendant concerning COVID19, including any policies or procedures to protect individuals in the jail from COVID-19, with supplements to Plaintiffs as those policies are updated through the date of the preliminary injunction hearing.
8

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 31 Filed 04/17/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 11

Dated: April 17, 2020

Respectfully submitted,
s/ Andy McNulty Andy McNulty Michael P. Fairhurst David A. Lane Darold W. Killmer KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP 1543 Champa St. Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 571-1000 (303) 571-1001 Facsimile amcnulty@kln-law.com mfairhurst@kln-law.com dlane@kln-law.com dkillmer@kn-law.com
and
David G. Maxted Maxted Law LLC 1543 Champa Street Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 720-717-0877 Fax: 720-500-1251 dave@maxtedlaw.com
and
Jamie Hughes Hubbard STIMSON STANCIL LABRANCHE HUBBARD, LLC Phone: 720.689.8909 Email: hubbard@sslhlaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs Carranza, Martinez, Propes, Ward and Hunter
Mark Silverstein Rebecca T. Wallace Sara R. Neel AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF COLORADO 303 E. 17th Avenue, Suite 350 Denver, Colorado 80203 (720) 402-3114
9

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 31 Filed 04/17/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 11
msilverstein@aclu-co.org rtwallace@aclu-co.org sneel@aclu-co.org and Daniel D. Williams Lauren E. Groth HUTCHINSON BLACK AND COOK, LLC 921 Walnut Street, Suite 200 Boulder, Colorado 80302 (303) 442-6514 Williams@hbcboulder.com Groth@hbcboulder.com In cooperation with the ACLU Foundation of Colorado Counsel for Plaintiffs Barnum and Lewis
10

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 31 Filed 04/17/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 17, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing EMERGENCY MOTION FOR LIMITED EXPEDITED DISCOVERY with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification to the following counsel.

Matthew Hegarty Andrew Ringel John Peters HALL & EVANS LLC 1001 17th Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 hegartym@hallevans.com ringel@hallevans.com jpeters@hallevans.com

/s/ Charlotte Bocquin Scull Paralegal

11

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 34 Filed 04/20/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 20-cv-00977-PAB THOMAS CARRANZA; JESUS MARTINEZ; RICHARD BARNUM; THOMAS LEWIS; MICHAEL WARD; COLBY PROPES; and CHAD HUNTER,
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR LIMITED EXPEDITED DISCOVERY [ECF 31]
Defendant Sheriff Steven Reams (“Sheriff”), by and through his counsel, Hall & Evans, L.L.C., respectfully responds to Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Limited Expedited Discovery [ECF 31], and requests the Motion be denied except as expressly set forth in this Response, as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs seek to subject the Sheriff to several discovery requests—some of which the Sheriff perceived as reasonable and expressed a willingness to comply subject to certain equally reasonable conditions, and others of which he perceived as harassing and oppressive. However, under the law governing early discovery requests including

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 34 Filed 04/20/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 11
Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 26(d)(1), Plaintiffs were required to present the Court with substantial “good cause” for the totality of their requests. Yet, they offer the Court argument devoid of evidentiary support. The Court should partially grant the Motion within the boundaries of the Sheriff’s previously-stated agreement below, and otherwise deny the Motion.
II. BACKGROUND Initially, the Sheriff denies Plaintiffs’ assertion any procedures, customs, policies, or practices at the Weld County Jail (“WCJ”) were a response to Plaintiffs’ lawsuit. The Sheriff also denies Plaintiffs’ assertion any of the extremely small number of inmates testing positive for COVID-19 at the WCJ were exposed due to the conduct of the Sheriff or the Weld County Sheriff’s Office (“WCSO”). Despite this disagreement, the Sheriff’s counsel attempted to work with opposing counsel as to the parameters of what eventually became ECF 31, but negotiations broke down based on opposing counsel’s failure to engage the Sheriff’s legitimate requests.. For the Court’s edification, the relevant conferral circumstances are attached as Exh. A. 1. As conclusively detailed in the Sheriff’s Declaration, but more importantly by the significant evidentiary attachments submitted along with the Declaration, the Sheriff and the WCSO began taking substantial steps beginning on February 27, 2020—well before any outbreak of COVID-19 in Weld County proper or before the current minor outbreak within the WCJ—to combat the spread of COVID-19. [ECF 26-1 to 26-9.] 2. In fact, of the substantial steps taken beginning on February 27, 2020, virtually all of them were taken before 11:59 PM on April 6, 2020—the day before anyone attributable to the Sheriff, the WCSO, or the Sheriff’s counsel were even aware of the
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 34 Filed 04/20/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 11
prospect of the above-captioned litigation being filed. [See generally ECF 26-1 to 26-9; see also ECF 26-1 at 3-21.]
3. On April 7, 2020, the Sheriff, the WCSO, and the Sheriff’s counsel learned of this litigation being filed.
4. On April 9, 2020, the Sheriff’s counsel conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel on the parameters of a potential inspection of the WCJ and agreed on an inspection protocol, the relevant portions of which are attached to this Response as Exh. B.
5. The inspection occurred on Friday, April 10, 2020. [ECF 26-1 at 21 ¶ 86.] During the inspection, both sides’ expert were given a tour of the WCJ for approximately 3 hours and 15 minutes including donning and doffing of personal protective equipment (“PPE”), during which time all participants were escorted by two WCSO personnel for their safety and security, viewed whatever areas they desired of WCJ operations, and were permitted to ask all questions they desired on the WCSO response to COVID-19. [Id.] Plaintiffs have not challenged this description of the April 10, 2020, inspection despite it being on the Court’s docket for more than seven days.
6. Thereafter, and even after filing an uninvited and non-conferred “Notice of Supplemental Evidence and Authority” in violation of PAB Civ. Prac. Std. III.B.2, Plaintiffs withdrew their request for a TRO. [See ECF 29, ECF 30.]1
1 In ECF 28, ECF 28-1, and ECF 31, Plaintiffs violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) by including the purported individually identifiable health information of a person not yet dead 50 years. See 45 C.F.R. § 160.103, ¶ (2)(iv) in definition of “protected health information” under HIPAA.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 34 Filed 04/20/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 11
7. After close of business April 15, 2020, Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed the Sheriff’s counsel to obtain counsel’s position on Plaintiffs’ early-discovery request. [Exh. A at 4-5.]
8. More than two hours before response deadline, the Sheriff’s counsel set forth areas of agreement to Plaintiffs’ sought-after discovery with conditions on compliance (data), one area of partial agreement (WCSO policies and procedures relating to COVID19 but only in the context of hearing exhibits), and one area of total disagreement (second inspection to which Plaintiffs asserted entitlement). [Exh. A at 1-2.] The Sheriff’s counsel requested a substantive response from Plaintiffs to the concerns and issues raised.
9. Thereafter, the Sheriff’s counsel received only the following inaccurate statement:
We have already provided you with a detailed description of our need for the requested discovery – it is all narrowly tailored to give us what we need so as to present to the Court the current jail conditions at the time of the preliminary injunction hearing in light of the changes the WCJ has made in response to our lawsuit. This is critically important so that the Court can take appropriate action to protect the class of vulnerable people under your client’s custody who are at grave risk of exposure to COVID-19, as well as those who are already exposed as a result of your client’s conduct. As for your proposal to give us information subject to the conditions you seek to impose, we cannot agree to those conditions. We will note Defendant’s opposition to our motion, although we disagree that we are required to include your lengthy email in the text of our motion or as an attachment to it. The Sheriff’s counsel requested the prior conferral string be attached to give the Court an accurate portrayal of the conferral, which request went unheeded. 10. A re-inspection of the WCJ, for multiple reasons, would be unduly burdensome and substantially disruptive to the Sheriff and to WCJ operations. [See generally Exh. C, Decl. of Capt. Matthew Turner, Jail Captain of Weld County Jail, at 2-5.]
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 34 Filed 04/20/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 11
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW A court order allowing expedited discovery under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d)(1) can issue but only upon a showing of good cause, where the plaintiff’s need for expedited discovery outweighs any possible prejudice or hardship to the defendant. See Qwest Comm’s Int’l, Inc. v. Worldquest Networks, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 418, 419 (D. Colo. 2003); Pod-Ners, LLC v. N. Feed & Bean of Lucerne LLC, 204 F.R.D. 675, 676 (D. Colo. 2002). Good cause exists where the evidence sought “may be consumed or destroyed with the passage of time, thereby disadvantaging one or more parties to the litigation.” Qwest, 213 F.R.D. at 419. That is, entry of such an order is not appropriate where it is less likely relevant evidence may be destroyed or lost. Cases where plaintiffs may require expedited discovery to meet their burden of proof to obtain a preliminary injunction are “expected to be rare”. Notaro v. Koch, 95 F.R.D. 403, 405 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). In Pod-Ners, for example, expedited discovery occurred because the plants at issue were capable of spoiling or being consumed or destroyed over time. Pod-Ners, 204 F.R.D. at 676. Expedited discovery may be appropriate in some cases where a party seeks a preliminary injunction. Pod-Ners, 204 F.R.D. at 676. However, such expedited discovery must be limited and narrowly tailored to seek only information necessary to support expedited relief. See Qwest, 213 F.R.D. at 420 (denying request for expedited discovery as overly broad). For example, the use of a broad term such as “relate to” or “concerning” in an expedited discovery request provides no basis upon which a party can reasonably determine what documents may or may not be responsive. Qwest, 213 F.R.D. at 421. When expedited discovery is sought to prepare for a preliminary injunction hearing, the
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 34 Filed 04/20/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 11
discovery requests are examined in the context of the whole record and their
reasonableness in light of all circumstances. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
v. O’Connor, 194 F.R.D. 618, 624 (N.D. Ill. 2000).
And concerning an early-discovery request to inspect premises, the Sheriff as the
responding party must be permitted, in the context of this written Response filed with the
Court pursuant to ECF 33, to “state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the
request, including the reasons.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B).
IV. ARGUMENT
A. The Sheriff’s Agreement to and Conditions on Furnishing Data Are Reasonable
In the parties’ conferral on ECF 31, the Sheriff indicated he would be agreeable to
the following narrowly tailored furnishing of daily data:
(1) Providing Plaintiffs with a daily report, served on counsel-ofrecord only by 6:00 PM each day and current as of 5:00 PM on said day, from 04/11 through the day before the preliminary injunction hearing, of the total inmate count in the isolation unit (only one such unit at present, but if additional units come into such use the data will be furnished);
(2) Providing Plaintiffs with a daily report, served on counsel-ofrecord only by 6:00 PM each day and current as of 5:00 PM on said day, from 04/11 through the day before the preliminary injunction hearing, of the total inmate count of persons currently housed within the Weld County Jail who at some point since March 1, 2020 were diagnosed by a healthcare professional as having tested positive for COVID-19;
(3) Providing Plaintiffs with a daily report, served on counsel-ofrecord only by 6:00 PM each day and current as of 5:00 PM on said day, from 04/11 through the day before the preliminary injunction hearing, of the total inmate count of persons currently housed within the Weld County Jail who at some point since March 1, 2020 were designated by a healthcare professional as being treated as “presumptively positive” for COVID-19 but who have not in fact tested positive (or did not in fact test positive) for COVID-19; and
6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 34 Filed 04/20/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 11
(4) As for all data from April 11, 2020 to April 17, 2020, counsel-ofrecord for Plaintiffs could expect to receive it no earlier than 5:30 PM on April 17, 2020; from April 18, 2020 to April 19, 2020, counsel-of-record for Plaintiffs could expect to receive it no earlier than 5:30 PM on April 20, 2020; and from April 25, 2020 to April 26, 2020, counsel-of-record for Plaintiffs could expect to receive it no earlier than 5:30 PM on April 27, 2020.2 [Exh. A at 1.] The Sheriff made this offer (and the offer concerning the furnishing of policies) subject to the following limited conditions: request a briefing schedule, for Plaintiffs to respond and Defendant to reply with no sur-reply permitted, on the legal issues identified in ECF 27; have the preliminary injunction hearing no earlier than 04/29/2020; and a stipulation as to authenticity of all defense hearing exhibits, whether documents or video. [See Exh. A at 2.] Plaintiffs offered no response to the Sheriff’s counsel, and no complaint in ECF 31, as to why this proposed scope of data and these conditions would be unreasonable.3 B. The Sheriff’s Agreement to and Limits on Furnishing Policies Are Reasonable In the parties’ conferral on ECF 31, the Sheriff indicated he was agreeable to the following narrowly tailored furnishing of COVID-19-related policies [see Exh. A at 1-2]:
(1) The Sheriff would furnish written policies and procedures from the WCSO and Weld County Health Department (to the extent given to the WCSO and applicable to WCJ operations) relating to COVID-19, including policies or procedures to protect inmates from COVID-19, whether they have been disseminated to the inmates or otherwise. However, the Sheriff was willing to do so only in the form and context of PI hearing exhibits under
2 The Sheriff does not concede good cause exists for provision of any of these data points but he is willing to provide them nonetheless.
3 The Sheriff continues to believe the legal issues before this Court are paramount, and warrant further briefing and consideration by this Court. The Sheriff maintains the legal barriers articulated by the Sheriff foreclose this Court awarding the relief Plaintiffs demand regardless of the facts presented at any evidentiary hearing before this Court.
7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 34 Filed 04/20/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 11
whatever PI hearing exhibit exchange schedule the Court in its discretion might set.
(2) The Sheriff’s made this offer subject to the same limited conditions as for data. C. Any WCJ Re-Inspection Will Be Unreasonable, Burdensome, and Disruptive In contrast, Plaintiffs’ proposed re-inspection of the whole WCJ is unnecessary and disproportionate to its heavy and undue burden, expense, and substantial disruption. In the context of correctional facility inspections, “the search for the truth must be balanced against the burdens and dangers created by the inspection.” United States v. Territory of the V.I., 280 F.R.D. 232, 236-37 (D.V.I. 2012) (denying motion for inspection of correctional facility); Silverstein v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47646, at *4 (D. Colo. May 20, 2009) (same). Plaintiffs must offer a “heightened showing” of relevance and necessity. De Abadia-Peixoto v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98578, at *7 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2013). A claim to re-inspection of the WCJ required Plaintiffs to present the Court with supporting evidence. Not data in the nature of which the Sheriff has agreed to provide, but specific evidence from their expert’s first inspection indicative of deliberate indifference by the Sheriff. Notably absent from Plaintiffs’ presentation is any expert report or other articulation of any specific deficiencies in the operations, policies, or procedures of the WCJ. It is not enough for Plaintiffs to assert disagreement; they must present evidence, have entirely failed to do so, and cannot later attempt to sandbag the Sheriff. Moreover, Plaintiffs identify the wrong merits issue (the effectiveness of the procedures implemented since April 10, 2020, in reducing transmission). The actual issue
8

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 34 Filed 04/20/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 11
is whether the Sheriff has taken reasonable steps, both inside and outside the WCJ, to protect inmate health and safety. Plaintiffs haven’t articulated what specifically they weren’t able to inspect previously or what they anticipate finding in a re-inspection on any specific issue other than generalized and unsubstantiated rhetoric. Even if more WCJ inmates have tested positive for COVID-19 (which is not occurring as of this filing), that proves nothing other than the WCJ is subject to the same spread as the entire world.
In contrast, the Sheriff now offers the Court evidence of undue burdens and substantial disruptions implicated by an unwarranted re-inspection, namely: scant PPE to spare; hours of cleaning necessitated after inspection concludes; prospect of inmates slowly beginning to have incrementally increasing time outside of cells in appropriately sixed groups; additional operational and staff burdens due to how much commotion the prior inspection created and associated prospect of creation of understaffed areas to accommodate inspection group; and the Sheriff and WCSO have no idea how well Plaintiffs’ counsel or their expert are doing at social distancing, hand washing, etc., yet the WCJ is taking and continuing to take many steps to reduce who comes in and isolate new arrivals, so allowing more people in the WCJ is itself a public health risk and weighs against re-inspection, all of which Plaintiffs apparently haven’t considered. [See Exh. C.]
Physical inspections assuredly are more burdensome and intrusive than written discovery. Here, the issue is whether Plaintiffs must be allowed a re-inspection. But Plaintiffs present no specific evidentiary basis for a re-inspection. See Silverstein, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47646, at *6 (“allowing another site visit for [plaintiff’s expert] is duplicative of discovery already allowed”). A re-inspection must be denied because
9

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 34 Filed 04/20/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 11
Plaintiffs haven’t established how the re-inspection is anything but an “ammo recon” mission which, like a hornbook fishing expedition, is “rarely appropriate and uniformly discouraged.” I’Mnaedaft, Ltd. v. Intelligent Office Sys., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50717, at *18 (D. Colo. May 29, 2009).4
V. CONCLUSION Applicable federal authority reveals the requisite “good cause” standard for early discovery is in fact quite high. Plaintiffs fail to satisfy this standard. Accordingly, Defendant Sheriff Steven Reams respectfully requests the Court enter an Order: authorizing the Sheriff to comply with Plaintiffs’ claimed entitlement to early discovery only as agreed herein; denying ECF 31 to the extent inconsistent with the Sheriff’s expressed agreement herein; and granting all other and further relief deemed just and appropriate. Respectfully submitted this 20th day of April, 2020.
s/ Matthew J. Hegarty Matthew J. Hegarty, Esq. Andrew D. Ringel, Esq. John F. Peters, Esq. of HALL & EVANS, LLC 1001 17th Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 T: (303) 628-3300 F: (303) 628-3368 hegartym@hallevans.com ringela@hallevans.com petersj@hallevans.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
4 U.S. v. Erie Cnty., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25646 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2010), does not assist Plaintiffs, because in that case no inspection of the correctional facility occurred yet, whereas here a quite detailed inspection already occurred and Plaintiffs haven’t given the Court the requisite good cause for a second inspection. [Exh. B; 26-1 at 21 ¶ 86.]
10

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 34 Filed 04/20/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF)

I hereby certify that on this 20th day of April, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court which will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses:

Darold W. Killmer David A. Lane Andrew Joseph McNulty Michael Paul Fairhurst KILLMER LANE & NEWMAN LLP dkillmer@kln-law.com dlane@kln-law.com amcnulty@kln-law.com mfairhurst@kln-law.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Thomas Carranza, Jesus Martinez, Michael Ward, Colby Propes, and Chad Hunter

David George Maxted MAXTED LAW LLC dave@maxtedlaw.com
Jamie Hughes Hubbard STIMSON STANCIL LABRANCHE HUBBARD LLC hubbard@sslhlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Thomas Carranza, Jesus Martinez, Michael Ward, Colby Propes, and Chad Hunter

Daniel David Williams Lauren Elizabeth Groth HUTCHINSON BLACK & COOK, LLC williams@hbcboulder.com groth@hbcboulder.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Richard Barnum and Thomas Lewis

Mark Silverstein Rebecca Teitelbaum Wallace Sara R. Neel AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNIONDENVER msilverstein@aclu-co.org rtwallace@aclu-co.org sneel@aclu-co.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs Richard Barnum and Thomas Lewis

s/ Marlene Wilson, Legal Assistant to Matthew J. Hegarty HALL & EVANS, L.L.C.

11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 34-1 Filed 04/20/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5

From: Sent: To:
Cc: Subject:

Hegarty, Matthew J. Thursday, April 16, 2020 12:56 PM Daniel D. Williams; Michael Fairhurst; Mark Silverstein; David Maxted; Rebecca Wallace; Lauren E. Groth; Sara Neel; David Lane; Jamie Hubbard; Andrew McNulty; Charlotte Scull; Darold Killmer Ringel, Andrew D.; Peters, John F. "Jack" RE: Weld County Jail Litigation - Conferral re Discovery Motion

Daniel:
Below is Defendant’s conferral position on Plaintiffs’ Rule 26(d)(1) Motion as Defendant presently understands it. To ensure the Court is adequately informed of the conferral circumstances, you must either attach this particular email or copy and paste the below bolded text into your conferral section. It will probably be simpler just to attach this particular email as an exhibit to your filing but, as before, we leave the choice up to you.
“The current description of Plaintiffs’ proposed Motion is inadequate for Defendant to evaluate at present. As you know, Rule 26(d)(1) requires Plaintiffs to make a substantial showing of need for the “rare” case in which early discovery may be warranted—that is, to set forth the granular reasons why Plaintiffs think they are entitled to this information and inspection so early in the case—and you have not articulated below with any level of specificity the reasons why Plaintiffs believe they are entitled to early discovery on each of the four specific items you set forth below. We request you do so in reply to this email or else Defendant will be unable to confer adequately on your Motion. Keeping in mind, of course, that after receiving the as‐filed version of your Motion Defendant is entitled to an opportunity to state with specificity and in writing in a separate filing with the Court the grounds for its objections to any and all such early‐discovery requests to which Defendant objects.
“Despite these grave concerns and after consideration, Defendant would not be opposed to the following, to the extent Defendant is able to glean it from available information: ‐‐‐‐Providing Plaintiffs with a daily report, served on counsel‐of‐record only by 6:00 PM each day and current as of 5:00 PM on said day, from 04/11 through the day before the preliminary injunction hearing, of the total inmate count in the isolation unit (only one such unit exists at present, but of course if additional such units come into use Defendant will make that data available); ‐‐‐‐Providing Plaintiffs with a daily report, served on counsel‐of‐record only by 6:00 PM each day and current as of 5:00 PM on said day, from 04/11 through the day before the preliminary injunction hearing, of the total inmate count of persons currently housed within the Weld County Jail who at some point since March 1, 2020 were diagnosed by a healthcare professional as having tested positive for COVID‐19; ‐‐‐‐Providing Plaintiffs with a daily report, served on counsel‐of‐record only by 6:00 PM each day and current as of 5:00 PM on said day, from 04/11 through the day before the preliminary injunction hearing, of the total inmate count of persons currently housed within the Weld County Jail who at some point since March 1, 2020 have been designated by a healthcare professional as being treated as “presumptively positive” for COVID‐19 but who have not in fact tested positive for COVID‐19; and ‐‐‐‐As for all data from April 11, 2020 to April 17, 2020, counsel‐of‐record for Plaintiffs can expect to receive it no earlier than 5:30 PM on April 17, 2020. As for all data from April 18, 2020 to April 19, 2020, counsel‐of‐record for Plaintiffs can expect to receive it no earlier than 5:30 PM on April 20, 2020. As for all data from April 25, 2020 to April 26, 2020, counsel‐of‐record for Plaintiffs can expect to receive it no earlier than 5:30 PM on April 27, 2020.
“Further, as for written policies and procedures issued from the Weld County Sheriff’s Office and the Weld County Health Department (to the extent applicable to the operations of the Weld County Jail) concerning COVID‐19, including any policies or procedures to protect inmates from COVID‐19, whether they have been disseminated to the
EXHIBIT A
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 34-1 Filed 04/20/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 5
inmates or otherwise, Defendant is willing to offer them in the form of hearing exhibits pursuant to whatever hearing exhibit exchange schedule the Court in its discretion may set, but Defendant is opposed to doing otherwise.
“However, Defendant’s agreement to proceeding in, and only in, the fashion outlined above is contingent on Plaintiffs agreeing to include the following concessions in the text of their Rule 26(d)(1) Motion: ‐‐‐‐Plaintiffs shall in their Rule 26(d)(1) Motion request of the Court a briefing schedule, for Plaintiffs to respond and Defendant to reply with no surreply permitted, as to the legal issues identified in ECF 27; ‐‐‐‐Plaintiffs shall in their Rule 26(d)(1) Motion state they agree to have the preliminary injunction hearing no earlier than Wednesday April 29, 2020; ‐‐‐‐Plaintiffs shall in their Rule 26(d)(1) Motion represent they will stipulate to authenticity of all of Defendant’s hearing exhibits, whether documentary or video evidence.”
Thank you!
Matthew
From: Hegarty, Matthew J. <hegartym@hallevans.com> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 12:31 PM To: Daniel D. Williams <williams@hbcboulder.com>; Michael Fairhurst <mfairhurst@kln‐law.com>; Mark Silverstein <msilverstein@aclu‐co.org>; David Maxted <dave@maxtedlaw.com>; Rebecca Wallace <rtwallace@aclu‐co.org>; Lauren E. Groth <groth@hbcboulder.com>; Sara Neel <sneel@aclu‐co.org>; David Lane <dlane@kln‐law.com>; Jamie Hubbard <hubbard@sslhlaw.com>; Andrew McNulty <amcnulty@kln‐law.com>; Charlotte Scull <cscull@kln‐law.com>; Darold Killmer <dkillmer@kln‐law.com> Cc: Ringel, Andrew D. <ringela@hallevans.com>; Peters, John F. "Jack" <petersj@hallevans.com> Subject: RE: Weld County Jail Litigation ‐ Conferral re Discovery Motion
Everyone:
It is now 12:31 PM. We anticipate having a conferral response for you by 1:30 PM. Please stand by and thank you.
Matthew
Matthew J. Hegarty | Member hegartym@hallevans.com Tel: 303‐628‐3418
Hall & Evans, LLC 1001 Seventeenth Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202
COLORADO | MISSOURI | MONTANA | NEW MEXICO | UTAH | WYOMING website | bio | LinkedIn
From: Hegarty, Matthew J. <hegartym@hallevans.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 8:35 PM To: Daniel D. Williams <williams@hbcboulder.com>; Michael Fairhurst <mfairhurst@kln‐law.com>; Mark Silverstein <msilverstein@aclu‐co.org>; David Maxted <dave@maxtedlaw.com>; Rebecca Wallace <rtwallace@aclu‐co.org>; Lauren E. Groth <groth@hbcboulder.com>; Sara Neel <sneel@aclu‐co.org>; David Lane <dlane@kln‐law.com>; Jamie Hubbard <hubbard@sslhlaw.com>; Andrew McNulty <amcnulty@kln‐law.com>; Charlotte Scull <cscull@kln‐law.com>; Darold Killmer <dkillmer@kln‐law.com>
EXHIBIT A
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 34-1 Filed 04/20/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 5
Cc: Ringel, Andrew D. <ringela@hallevans.com>; Peters, John F. "Jack" <petersj@hallevans.com> Subject: Re: Weld County Jail Litigation ‐ Conferral re Discovery Motion
Daniel:
Thanks for your email. Earlier this evening we dutifully passed it onto client representatives. We anticipate having a substantive conferral response to you tomorrow afternoon prior to the 3:00 PM deadline you indicate below. Thank you very much and please have a good evening.
Matthew Hegarty Hall & Evans, L.L.C.
Matthew J. Hegarty | Member hegartym@hallevans.com Tel: 303‐628‐3418
Hall & Evans, LLC 1001 Seventeenth Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202
COLORADO | MISSOURI | MONTANA | NEW MEXICO | UTAH | WYOMING website | bio | LinkedIn
On Apr 15, 2020, at 6:49 PM, Daniel D. Williams <williams@hbcboulder.com> wrote:
Andrew – Rule 26(d)(1) allows the Court to order discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) conference. Of course, limited discovery in advance of a preliminary injunction hearing is routine, making your resistance to it in this case both surprising and disappointing. The Sheriff’s resistance to the minimal discovery we have requested suggests he is afraid of the facts. Particularly given that we are in the midst of a public health crisis, let’s move beyond that sort of maneuvering and focus on having all relevant facts come to light so that the Court can take any needed action to protect innocent people in the Sheriff’s custody from being infected with a deadly disease.
Dan
From: Ringel, Andrew D. <ringela@hallevans.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 5:39 PM To: Daniel D. Williams <williams@hbcboulder.com>; Hegarty, Matthew J. <hegartym@hallevans.com>; Michael Fairhurst <mfairhurst@kln‐law.com>; Mark Silverstein <msilverstein@aclu‐co.org>; David Maxted <dave@maxtedlaw.com>; Rebecca Wallace <rtwallace@aclu‐co.org>; Lauren E. Groth <groth@hbcboulder.com>; Sara Neel <sneel@aclu‐co.org>; David Lane <dlane@kln‐law.com>; Jamie Hubbard <hubbard@sslhlaw.com>; Andrew McNulty <amcnulty@kln‐law.com>; Charlotte Scull <cscull@kln‐law.com>; Darold Killmer <dkillmer@kln‐law.com> Cc: Peters, John F. "Jack" <petersj@hallevans.com>; Ringel, Andrew D. <ringela@hallevans.com> Subject: RE: Weld County Jail Litigation ‐ Conferral re Discovery Motion
Daniel:
EXHIBIT A
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 34-1 Filed 04/20/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 5
So I can understand the legal and procedural basis for your motion please provide the basis for a request for discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) conference and in advance of a preliminary injunction hearing. I would be greatly interested in the specific rule of civil procedure you are relying on and any cases that you have that allow discovery including an inspection of premises in this context. The sooner you can provide such information the more easily we can respond to your request on an informed basis.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation with this request.
Andrew

Andrew D. Ringel | Member ringela@hallevans.com Tel: 303‐628‐3453
Hall & Evans, LLC 1001 Seventeenth Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202

<image002.png>
COLORADO | MISSOURI | MONTANA | NEW MEXICO | UTAH | WYOMING website | bio | LinkedIn

Confidentiality Notice: This e‐mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the named addressee(s) of this message and may be subject to attorney‐client privilege or work‐product protection. If you are not the named addressee, unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited; please notify the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Our spam protection may prevent any reply e‐mail from being delivered. If I have not responded to your email within 48 hours, please contact our office at 303/628‐3300. This e‐mail and any attachments are believed to be free of viruses and defects, but it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus‐free. The sender is not responsible for any loss or damage arising from its use.
From: Daniel D. Williams <williams@hbcboulder.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 5:36 PM To: Hegarty, Matthew J. <hegartym@hallevans.com>; Michael Fairhurst <mfairhurst@kln‐law.com>; Mark Silverstein <msilverstein@aclu‐co.org>; David Maxted <dave@maxtedlaw.com>; Rebecca Wallace <rtwallace@aclu‐co.org>; Lauren E. Groth <groth@hbcboulder.com>; Sara Neel <sneel@aclu‐co.org>; David Lane <dlane@kln‐law.com>; Jamie Hubbard <hubbard@sslhlaw.com>; Andrew McNulty <amcnulty@kln‐law.com>; Charlotte Scull <cscull@kln‐law.com>; Darold Killmer <dkillmer@kln‐ law.com> Cc: Ringel, Andrew D. <ringela@hallevans.com>; Peters, John F. "Jack" <petersj@hallevans.com> Subject: RE: Weld County Jail Litigation ‐ Conferral re Discovery Motion

Matthew:

Tomorrow we intend to file a motion seeking the following, which primarily are requests you have seen before:

1. A re‐inspection of WCJ by our medical expert on Friday, April 24, using the same ground rules as

the prior inspection;

2. A Daily report, from Saturday, April 11 through the date of the preliminary injunction hearing, of

the total count in the isolation units, which we understand is currently just unit 11;

3. A Daily report, from Saturday, April 11 through the date of the preliminary injunction hearing, of

the total count of inmates at the jail who have tested positive for COVID‐19, and who are being

treated as presumptively positive based on their symptoms; and

EXHIBIT A

4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 34-1 Filed 04/20/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 5
4. Copies of all written policies and procedures issued concerning COVID‐19, including any policies or procedures to protect inmates from COVID‐19, with supplements to us as those policies are updated between now and the preliminary injunction hearing.
Although these information requests are quite minimal, you have either declined or ignored them in the past. Please let us know by 3:00 p.m. tomorrow whether Defendant will now agree to any of them, so that we can let the Court know whether our motion will be opposed. Also, as you know, I have been asking for a call with you since Saturday to see where we can find points of agreement. For reasons we don’t understand, you have not responded to any of those overtures. We remain of the view that proceeding in a collaborative manner would be in the best interests of all of our clients, so please let know if we can set a call. Best regards, Dan DANIEL D. WILLIAMS, Attorney at Law HUTCHINSON BLACK AND COOK, LLC 921 Walnut Street | Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 tel 303.442.6514 | direct 303.441.7430 | fax 303.442.6593 Williams@hbcboulder.com | http://www.hbcboulder.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is confidential and may be privileged. If you believe that this email has been sent to you in error, please reply to the sender that you received the message in error; then please delete this e‐mail.
EXHIBIT A
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 34-2 Filed 04/20/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT B

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 34-2 Filed 04/20/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 6
Please let us know whether you approve this modification and, after you approve, I will send around a PDF of the final agreed‐upon inspection protocol. Thanks!
Matthew
Matthew J. Hegarty | Member hegartym@hallevans.com Tel: 303‐628‐3418 Hall & Evans, LLC 1001 Seventeenth Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202

COLORADO | MISSOURI | MONTANA | NEW MEXICO | UTAH | WYOMING website | bio | LinkedIn
From: Michael Fairhurst <mfairhurst@kln‐law.com> Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 7:43 PM To: Hegarty, Matthew J. <hegartym@hallevans.com> Cc: Mark Silverstein <msilverstein@aclu‐co.org>; David Maxted <dave@maxtedlaw.com>; Rebecca Wallace <rtwallace@aclu‐co.org>; Lauren E. Groth <groth@hbcboulder.com>; Sara Neel <sneel@aclu‐co.org>; Daniel D. Williams <williams@hbcboulder.com>; David Lane <dlane@kln‐law.com>; Jamie Hubbard <hubbard@sslhlaw.com>; Andrew McNulty <amcnulty@kln‐law.com>; Charlotte Scull <cscull@kln‐law.com>; Ringel, Andrew D. <ringela@hallevans.com>; Peters, John F. "Jack" <petersj@hallevans.com> Subject: RE: Weld County Jail Litigation
Matthew,
Do you anticipate having a response tonight?
Thank you, Michael Fairhurst Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP 1543 Champa St, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 303‐571‐1000 Phone 303‐571‐1001 Fax www.kln‐law.com mfairhurst@kln‐law.com

From: Michael Fairhurst Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 5:15 PM To: Hegarty, Matthew J. <hegartym@hallevans.com> Cc: Mark Silverstein <msilverstein@aclu‐co.org>; David Maxted <dave@maxtedlaw.com>; Rebecca Wallace <rtwallace@aclu‐co.org>; Lauren E. Groth <groth@hbcboulder.com>; Sara Neel <sneel@aclu‐co.org>; Daniel D. Williams <williams@hbcboulder.com>; David Lane <dlane@kln‐law.com>; Jamie Hubbard <hubbard@sslhlaw.com>; Andrew McNulty <amcnulty@kln‐law.com>; Charlotte Scull <cscull@kln‐law.com>; Ringel, Andrew D. <ringela@hallevans.com>; Peters, John F. "Jack" <petersj@hallevans.com> Subject: RE: Weld County Jail Litigation

Matthew,

2

EXHIBIT B

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 34-2 Filed 04/20/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 6

We’re getting close to complete agreement. The one remaining point of disagreement that we appear to have revolves around Plaintiffs’ expert being able to choose the pod they inspect shortly before entering the area. It is Plaintiffs’ inspection, so it appropriate for Plaintiffs’ expert to retain the ability to choose which pods to visit. In addition, there’s no sense in hiding the ball: A major concern of ours, should Plaintiffs’ expert not be able to independently decide where to visit (within the physical parameters we’ve agreed upon) after arriving at the jail, is that jail officials may transfer people out of a pod or otherwise alter the jail’s typical/actual response to COVID before the experts gain entry to the area. Defendant’s expert does not have the same arm’s length relationship with the jail that Plaintiffs’ expert has (I don’t mean to impugn Dr. Smith’s character; I am simply saying that Dr. Smith was handpicked by the Defendant in the case, and the Defendant is being sued for conditions in the jail).
The main point of the inspection, from our perspective, is for an independent infectious disease expert, who has no connection to the jail, to meaningfully evaluate how the jail is addressing COVID. Of course, this requires accurate data that is representative of what is happening on the ground. Thus, all we are requesting at this point, beyond what you have committed to doing, is a process that is designed to preserve the integrity of the investigation and, by extension, integrity of the results. I trust that this is important to Defendant’s medical expert as well.
Please let us know your thoughts on this one remaining issue. Thank you.
Michael Fairhurst Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP 1543 Champa St, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 303‐571‐1000 Phone 303‐571‐1001 Fax www.kln‐law.com mfairhurst@kln‐law.com
From: Hegarty, Matthew J. <hegartym@hallevans.com> Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 4:38 PM To: Michael Fairhurst <mfairhurst@kln‐law.com>; Mark Silverstein <msilverstein@aclu‐co.org>; David Maxted <dave@maxtedlaw.com>; Rebecca Wallace <rtwallace@aclu‐co.org>; Lauren E. Groth <groth@hbcboulder.com>; Sara Neel <sneel@aclu‐co.org>; Daniel D. Williams <williams@hbcboulder.com>; David Lane <dlane@kln‐law.com>; Jamie Hubbard <hubbard@sslhlaw.com>; Andrew McNulty <amcnulty@kln‐law.com>; Charlotte Scull <cscull@kln‐law.com> Cc: Ringel, Andrew D. <ringela@hallevans.com>; Peters, John F. "Jack" <petersj@hallevans.com> Subject: RE: Weld County Jail Litigation
Michael:
Thanks again for your patience. Defendant’s responses to the inquiries you raise below are in blue and underlined bold and appear after each of your responses in unbolded red to the extent a response is necessitated.
Happily, it looks like we are just about 100% agreed. I anticipate this email string will be PDFed and printed out up to and including your “I think this covers everything” line in your email of 3:26 PM MDT today such that there is an absence of ambiguity as to the parameters of the WCJ inspection protocol. Please reply back as soon as time allows and let us know if you agree with the points in this paragraph. Thanks!
Matthew

Matthew J. Hegarty | Member

hegartym@hallevans.com

3

EXHIBIT B

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 34-2 Filed 04/20/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 6
Tel: 303‐628‐3418 Hall & Evans, LLC 1001 Seventeenth Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202

COLORADO | MISSOURI | MONTANA | NEW MEXICO | UTAH | WYOMING website | bio | LinkedIn
From: Hegarty, Matthew J. <hegartym@hallevans.com> Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 4:04 PM To: Michael Fairhurst <mfairhurst@kln‐law.com>; Mark Silverstein <msilverstein@aclu‐co.org>; David Maxted <dave@maxtedlaw.com>; Rebecca Wallace <rtwallace@aclu‐co.org>; Lauren E. Groth <groth@hbcboulder.com>; Sara Neel <sneel@aclu‐co.org>; Daniel D. Williams <williams@hbcboulder.com>; David Lane <dlane@kln‐law.com>; Jamie Hubbard <hubbard@sslhlaw.com>; Andrew McNulty <amcnulty@kln‐law.com>; Charlotte Scull <cscull@kln‐law.com> Cc: Ringel, Andrew D. <ringela@hallevans.com>; Peters, John F. "Jack" <petersj@hallevans.com> Subject: RE: Weld County Jail Litigation
Michael:
My pleasure. Thank you for your response as well. It has been communicated to client reps and we are waiting on authorization to provide answers to the inquiries you raise below in red. Thank you for your patience.
Matthew
Matthew J. Hegarty | Member hegartym@hallevans.com Tel: 303‐628‐3418
Hall & Evans, LLC 1001 Seventeenth Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202

COLORADO | MISSOURI | MONTANA | NEW MEXICO | UTAH | WYOMING website | bio | LinkedIn
From: Michael Fairhurst <mfairhurst@kln‐law.com> Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 3:26 PM To: Hegarty, Matthew J. <hegartym@hallevans.com> Cc: Ringel, Andrew D. <ringela@hallevans.com>; Peters, John F. "Jack" <petersj@hallevans.com>; Mark Silverstein <msilverstein@aclu‐co.org>; David Maxted <dave@maxtedlaw.com>; Rebecca Wallace <rtwallace@aclu‐co.org>; Lauren E. Groth <groth@hbcboulder.com>; Sara Neel <sneel@aclu‐co.org>; Daniel D. Williams <williams@hbcboulder.com>; David Lane <dlane@kln‐law.com>; Jamie Hubbard <hubbard@sslhlaw.com>; Andrew McNulty <amcnulty@kln‐ law.com>; Charlotte Scull <cscull@kln‐law.com> Subject: RE: Weld County Jail Litigation

Matthew,

Again, we appreciate your prompt and detailed response. Our replies to your specific points are below, in red. First, a

few general points: (1) Dr. Krsak is not available to conduct an inspection at 10am tomorrow. Fortunately, Dr. Carlos

4

EXHIBIT B

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 34-2 Filed 04/20/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 6

Franco‐Paredes, another infectious disease specialist, is available. His CV is attached. (2) Daniel Williams, counsel for Plaintiffs, plans to accompany Dr. Franco‐Paredes, Dr. Smith, and a representative of the County Attorney’s office for the entire inspection tomorrow.

(1) Dr. Krsak shall be accompanied, at all times and during the entirety of all conversations and interviews, by both

(a) Defendant’s independent medical expert, Valerie Smith, PhD, MPH, Weld County Communicable Disease

Program Supervisor; and (b) a representative of the Weld County Attorney’s Office. That is fine.

a. Each of these three individuals will have access to the same information through their eyes and ears.

That is the only way to ensure true independence. That is fine.

b. Each of these three individuals will be allowed a pen and notepad but will not be permitted any device

capable of making an audio recording or video recording, for security purposes. That is fine.

(2) Each of these three individuals shall bring their own PPE, as much as they feel appropriate, so that the PPE

supplies at the Weld County Jail are not diminished by reason of this inspection. That is fine, with a small caveat:

Dr. Franco‐Paredes and Mr. Williams would like the ability to bring their own hand sanitizer with them during

the inspection.

a. Defendant agrees to allow Dr. Franco‐Paredes and Mr. Williams to bring their own hand sanitizer so

long as it is secured on their person at all times and is for their personal use only.

(3) Dr. Krsak’s conversations or interviews with current Weld County inmates—whether they be Inmate Plaintiffs,

pretrial detainees, inmates who must carry out their sentences at the Weld County Jail, or otherwise—will not

be confidential at all, and both Dr. Smith and the WCAO representative will be allowed to listen to all aspects of

all such conversations or interviews. As you know, there is no federal physician‐patient privilege in federal court

where (as here) purely federal claims have been advanced, nor would Dr. Krsak as an expert retained by Inmate

Plaintiffs have any physician‐patient privilege with any such inmate under Colorado state law in any event. Thus,

there is no privacy interest which your clients or any other inmate can assert in any such conversation or

interview. This is fine, mostly. However, to ensure we are clear: It is important that inmates have the ability to

converse freely with the experts. Inmates should not be removed from the common areas, cells, etc. before the

experts arrive. If an expert wishes to ask an inmate who they randomly encounter questions, they should be

able to do so without restriction. Some information is private in nature, like personal health information, and is

probably best discussed in the setting you described in the section that immediately follows. Other information,

like sleeping and eating arrangements, is not inherently private and can be discussed in an open and public

setting.

a. As an accommodation to whomever of the current WCJ inmates or detainees wish to discuss their

health information with these three individuals, the WCJ will provide a sanitized meeting room into

which such inmates can be admitted one at a time along with these three individuals to ensure their

health information is kept private from the rest of the jail during the discussions. Obviously, Defendant

has no ability to control what the inmates do or do not discuss with each other outside the confines of

this sanitized meeting room, but this seems the most reasonable approach under the circumstances.

Fine.

b. Defendant agrees to the following: inmates and detainees will not be moved from common areas

before the experts arrive unless they were already in transit or already on their permitted break from

the current lockdown situation; the experts can freely ask questions of inmates and detainees apart

from questions about personal health information (such as information about sleeping and eating

arrangements) so long as the questions are audible to all inspection attendees and posed in English

with responses requested in English; and if the inmates or detainees want to answer questions about

personal health information or provide information about personal health information voluntarily,

they will then be transitioned to the sanitized meeting room where they can speak with the experts

about such questions.

(4) These three individuals, during the entirety of the inspection and to ensure their own safety and security, shall

be accompanied by a ranking officer of the WCSO Detentions Division. Fine.

a. As an accommodation to your clients (to the extent they wish to be interviewed) and to whomever of

the other inmates or detainees wishes to be interviewed within the sanitized meeting room indicated

above, which shall have a window allowing those outside to look in and observe even while the door is

5

EXHIBIT B

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 34-2 Filed 04/20/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 6
closed, the lieutenant shall cuff or otherwise reasonably restrain the interviewee, the lieutenant shall exit the room and allow the three inspecting individuals to enter, and the lieutenant shall close the door, but at all times the lieutenant shall be looking through the window to monitor the interview for the safety and security of the inspectors. Fine. (5) Dr. Krsak, Dr. Smith, and the WCAO rep—jointly and concurrently—shall be allowed to inspect the following areas of the Weld County Jail: intake/booking; inmate living areas (must inspect at least 2); medical observation unit (“MedObs”); all quarantine and med isolation units outside of MedObs; food prep area; inmate common areas (must inspect at least 2). Much of this is okay, but we do have a few caveats and questions. First, the expert should have the ability to randomly choose which pods they’ll be visiting upon arrival, and should have the ability to choose any of them. Second, do common areas include toilets, showers, phones, and water fountains? Third, what is the medical observation unit? Is there another medical area that you did not mention, like an infirmary? a. Defendant agrees to the following: Inmate Plaintiffs’ expert will be able to randomly select pods for inspection (being sure that at least two pods are inspected), but if Defendant’s expert believes Inmate Plaintiffs’ expert to be cherry‐picking, Defendant’s expert retains the right to require the inspection of pods include a third or fourth pod, to which Inmate Plaintiffs’ expert agrees in advance; the experts will be able to inspect toilets, showers, phones, and water fountains; and the WCJ does have an actual medical ward which is separate from the Medical Observation Unit which the inspecting group is free to tour together, but all members of the inspecting group should be aware this medical ward is limited in size so the WCSO did not utilize it long term for COVID‐19 issues. (6) Dr. Krsak, Dr. Smith, and the WCAO rep—jointly and concurrently—shall be allowed to shadow and speak with two medical staff of their joint agreement. Fine. (7) Dr. Krsak, Dr. Smith, and the WCAO rep—jointly and concurrently—shall be allowed to shadow and speak with two Detentions Division personnel of their joint agreement. Fine. (8) No time limit is set for the inspection, although Defendant would respectfully request it be conducted as expeditiously as possible to minimize disruption of Jail operations. Fine. (9) The Sheriff, in his sole discretion, retains the ability to suspend the inspection, to alter the order of the inspection tour, or to rule certain areas off limits for inspection, but only where necessary to address any emergent security or safety issues within the Weld County Jail and where necessary to ensure the safety of these three individuals who will be jointly and concurrently inspecting the Jail. Fine. a. Defendant is quite hopeful that due to the Jail currently being on lockdown, no such emergent security or safety issues will arise, but of course it is impossible to predict what inmates will do. b. The Sheriff, upon reflection, has determined the size of the inspecting group necessitates the addition of a second WCSO Detentions Division officer for safety and security purposes. This should not pose an issue, and this second officer will abide by all protocols as the ranking officer will abide insofar as it concerns the sanitized meeting room and the officer’s need to vacate the room before the interview starts.
I think this covers everything. Please let us know your response to the points above. Thank you.
Sincerely, Michael Fairhurst Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP 1543 Champa St, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 303‐571‐1000 Phone 303‐571‐1001 Fax www.kln‐law.com mfairhurst@kln‐law.com

6

EXHIBIT B

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 34-3 Filed 04/20/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00977-PAB THOMAS CARRANZA; JESUS MARTINEZ; RICHARD BARNUM; THOMAS LEWIS; MICHAEL WARD; COLBY PROPES; and CHAD HUNTER,
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
DECLARATION OF CAPTAIN MATTHEW TURNER
I, Captain Matthew Turner, being of lawful age and duly sworn under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby declare as follows:
1. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this Declaration. 2. I currently serve as the Jail Captain for the Weld County Jail (“WCJ”) County of Weld, State of Colorado. I have served in this position for four months. 3. Before beginning my tenure as the WCSO Jail Captain on January 1, 2020, I was employed with the Weld County Sheriff’s Office (“WCSO”) for eight (8) prior years and served in many positions: Corrections Officer (what is now called Detentions Deputy) and separately earned by Peace Officer Standards Training (“POST”) certification; Public Information Officer Corporal; Detentions Division Shift Sergeant; Civil Unit Sergeant in
EXHIBIT C
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 34-3 Filed 04/20/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 6
charge of civil service processors, animal control, and victim advocates; and Detentions Division Lieutenant.
4. I also earned an Associate of Arts in education from Front Range Community College in 2011 with a future goal to attain a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice from the University of Northern Colorado.
5. I am individually familiar with the protocols and processes the WCSO as a whole generated, implemented, and refined in response to the global, national, and local public health threat posed by the novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”), because I was personally involved in generating, implementing, refining, and approving such protocols and processes in consultation with a team of WCSO staff and local public health officials.
UNDULY BURDENSOME NATURE OF SECOND INSPECTION OF WCJ 6. When COVID-19 first began emerging as a potential concern for Weld County generally and the WCJ specifically, yet well before any outbreak of COVID-19 in Weld County proper or before the current minor outbreak within the WCJ, the WCSO worked with all Weld County local law enforcement entities and the 19th Judicial District judicial officers to try and limit the foot traffic within the WCJ, as much as reasonably practicable and within the bounds of statutorily required arrests and detentions. 7. Since March 13, 2020, the WCSO has permitted only essential tasks to occur within the WCJ—official law enforcement business and criminal justice business which is absolutely necessary to keep the wheels of criminal justice turning—encompassing of those tasks which if not accomplished potentially could violate the scope of constitutional criminal rights under the United States and Colorado Constitutions, specifically in connection with a pretrial detainee’s criminal trial.
EXHIBIT C
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 34-3 Filed 04/20/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 6
8. The WCSO’s definition of “essential tasks” as articulated in the immediately preceding paragraph is even more restrictive than the definition of “critical business” in the late March 2020 Order of Governor Jared Polis and associated Amended Public Health Order of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
9. Since March 16, 2020, the WCSO also reduced deputy traffic and movement throughout the WCJ in an effort to diminish even the prospect of transmission of any communicable disease from one region of the WCJ’s physical plant to another.
10. Since April 4, 2020, in the limited circumstances in which WCSO personnel have to move between units, all such persons must follow decontamination protocols at decontamination stations which are situated throughout the WCJ.
11. After the April 10, 2020, inspection, WCJ inmates and staff participated in the cleaning and sanitizing of each part of the WCJ the inspection group entered and exited.
12. Allowing a second inspection of the WCJ would be unduly burdensome to the WCSO given the substantial additional effort, cleaning and sanitizing, and staffing both before and after such an inspection, which such an inspection would necessitate.
13. Allowing a second inspection of the WCJ would be unduly burdensome given the fact it would take even further valuable personal protective equipment (“PPE”) and sanitization supplies away from WCJ inmates and WCSO staff.
14. Allowing a second inspection of the WCJ would be unduly burdensome given the fact multiple WCSO personnel will need to be pulled from responsibilities elsewhere in the WCJ to supervise the inspection and provide safety and security to the inspection group, which (for reasons articulated) will necessitate even more WCSO personnel participating in the supervision, safety, and security of the inspection group.
EXHIBIT C
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 34-3 Filed 04/20/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 6
SUBSTANTIALLY DISRUPTIVE NATURE OF SECOND INSPECTION OF WCJ 15. In connection with the April 10, 2020, inspection of the WCJ and during its
progress, WCJ inmates and detainees were extremely curious as to what was going on vis-à-vis the inspection. Such inmates exited their cells in violation of the lockdown protocol, violated social distancing guidelines which WCSO personnel repeatedly have told them to observe, and did not listen to the pod deputies who issued contemporaneous directives to get back in their cells and observe social distancing.
16. In particular, multiple inmates within one unit which the inspection group entered reportedly screamed and yelled at the inspection group their entire time there.
17. During the April 10, 2020, inspection, the WCSO could only spare two (2) WCSO staff members to devote to the inspection, and even that was not enough because of the significant disruptions the inspection caused, a mere example of which is above.
18. To even more carefully ensure the inmates adhere to such guidelines and directives, another inspection of the WCJ would necessitate a significant uptick in WCSO staff being pulled away from their existing duties within the WCJ (particularly given the decrease in foot traffic), which will further disrupt WCJ operations.
19. Such inspections of the WCJ simply are not a normal task for the WCSO and its staff, necessitating multiple modifications to the WCJ in an effort to accommodate the inspection group while still attempting to ensure inmate health and safety.
20. In addition, WCJ inmates who either previously tested positive for COVID-19 as determined by a medical professional, or were designated by a medical professional as being “presumptively positive” for COVID-19, all of whom have been in isolation, may begin emerging from isolation protocols after navigating a further protocol for testing
EXHIBIT C
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 34-3 Filed 04/20/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 6
negative for COVID-19. This will mean inmates will be out of their cells but still in small groups and still being directed to observe social distancing guidelines.
21. Allowing a second inspection of the WCJ would be substantially disruptive also given the prospect of WCJ inmates slowly being allowed such limited increases in freedom of movement, in groups of no more than nine (9) inmates, and potentially coming into contact with additional persons from outside the WCJ who may or may not be observing personal sanitation regimens and social distancing protocols themselves.
22. The WCSO desires to be extremely sensitive to the number of COVID-19 testing kits it has on hand and is continuing its already existing efforts to obtain more tests
23. In addition, as a result of continued decline in inmate population, the WCSO is beginning to be able to single-cell more and more inmates within the confines of the WCJ when able given physical plant limitations.
24. Allowing a second inspection of the WCJ would be substantially disruptive also given it is itself a public health risk due to the substantial steps which the WCSO has taken to limit inmate exposure to COVID-19 and the lack of assurance the WCJ has that any outside visitor, regardless of affiliation, is observing personal sanitation regimens and social distancing protocols themselves.
25. The last thing the WCSO wants to do is introduce an unknown element into the WCJ which could completely undermine the effective steps the WCSO has taken to plan for, slow, stop, and further guard against the spread of COVID-19. I understand the statements written in this Declaration are given under penalty of perjury. All of the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Pursuant
EXHIBIT C
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 34-3 Filed 04/20/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 6 to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, the foregoing is true and correct. FURTHER DECLARANT SAYETH NAUGHT. Dated and executed this 20th day of April, 2020. s/ Matthew Turner Matthew Turner, Jail Captain, Weld County Sheriff’s Office
EXHIBIT C
6

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 43 Filed 04/24/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00977-PAB THOMAS CARRANZA; JESUS MARTINEZ; RICHARD BARNUM; THOMAS LEWIS; MICHAEL WARD; COLBY PROPES; and CHAD HUNTER,
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF ERRATA FOR RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND
EXPEDITED HEARING [ECF 1]
Defendant Sheriff Steven Reams (“Sheriff”), by and through counsel, Hall & Evans, L.L.C., respectfully submits the following as his Notice of Errata for Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order ... and Expedited Hearing [ECF 1] as follows:
1. On April 13, 2020, the Sheriff filed his Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order ... and Expedited Hearing [ECF 1], ECF 26 (“Response”).
2. Exhibit A-23 to the Sheriff’s Declaration which was submitted in conjunction with the Response and currently is on the Court’s Docket as page 4 of ECF 26-6, was supposed to be a published internal directive on new guidelines for mental health services to inmates in the WCJ. See [ECF 26-1 at 13 ¶ 47].

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 43 Filed 04/24/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3. However, such exhibit inadvertently was omitted and two copies of Exhibit A24 were submitted instead, one labeled as Exhibit A-23 and one labeled as Exhibit A24. Compare [ECF 26-6 at 4] with [ECF 26-6 at 5].
4. Exh. A-23, attached hereto, constitutes the correct version of the referenced internal directive on new guidelines for mental health services to inmates in the WCJ and should be deemed substituted in place of the Exh. A-23 currently on the Court’s Docket.
5. The undersigned credits Plaintiffs’ counsel for advising of this oversight. Respectfully submitted this 24th day of April, 2020.
s/ Matthew J. Hegarty Matthew J. Hegarty, Esq. Andrew D. Ringel, Esq. John F. Peters, Esq. of HALL & EVANS, LLC 1001 17th Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 T: (303) 628-3300 F: (303) 628-3368 hegartym@hallevans.com ringela@hallevans.com petersj@hallevans.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 43 Filed 04/24/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF)

I hereby certify that on this 24th day of April, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF ERRATA FOR RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND EXPEDITED HEARING [ECF 1] was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court which will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses:

Darold W. Killmer David A. Lane Andrew Joseph McNulty Michael Paul Fairhurst KILLMER LANE & NEWMAN LLP dkillmer@kln-law.com dlane@kln-law.com amcnulty@kln-law.com mfairhurst@kln-law.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Thomas Carranza, Jesus Martinez, Michael Ward, Colby Propes, and Chad Hunter

David George Maxted MAXTED LAW LLC dave@maxtedlaw.com
Jamie Hughes Hubbard STIMSON STANCIL LABRANCHE HUBBARD LLC hubbard@sslhlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Thomas Carranza, Jesus Martinez, Michael Ward, Colby Propes, and Chad Hunter

Daniel David Williams Lauren Elizabeth Groth HUTCHINSON BLACK & COOK, LLC williams@hbcboulder.com groth@hbcboulder.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Richard Barnum and Thomas Lewis

Mark Silverstein Rebecca Teitelbaum Wallace Sara R. Neel AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNIONDENVER msilverstein@aclu-co.org rtwallace@aclu-co.org sneel@aclu-co.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs Richard Barnum and Thomas Lewis

s/ Amber Tamborello, Paralegal at HALL & EVANS, L.L.C.

3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 43-1 Filed 04/24/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT A-23
From: Stephanie Tornquist <stornquist@weldgov.com> Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2020 8:33 AM To: DD Sergeants <DDSergeants@co.weld.co.us> Subject: Fwd: COVID‐19 mitigation for Counseling Staff
Good Morning, Sergeants:
Please see the email sent to the counseling team below outlining a change in services. We will continue counseling in person, but are triaging these to limit the movement in the facility. Please let me know you you have any questions or concerns. Thank you.
Stephanie
Get Outlook for Android
From: Brandon Williams <bwilliams@weldgov.com> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 4:07:21 PM To: Stephanie Tornquist <stornquist@weldgov.com> Subject: FW: COVID‐19 mitigation for Counseling Staff Good Afternoon, In an effort to mitigate the risk of the spread of COVID-19 we have temporarily modified our work practices. In addition to washing our hands, reducing the amount of contact with others seems to be the most effective method in slowing the spread of this virus. With this understanding, steps will immediately be taken to implement the following measures:
 Counselors will be assigned specific units to complete Post SUW Contacts. As soon as possible, please deliver all of the files for Post SUW Contact Follow-ups to our office. These will be separated per unit and assigned to a specific counselor on a non-designated day. The expectation will be that the assigned counselor will complete the welfare checks on the date they are assigned.
 As appropriate, Individual Counseling will be suspended. If you believe that such an action isn’t prudent at this time staff your concerns with your Clinical Supervisor who will assist you with developing a plan to meet the Inmate’s needs. Otherwise send the attached Inmate Request Form to inmates currently receiving counseling services informing them that such services have been suspended and directing them to submit an Inmate Request Form to Inmate Services if they were to present with an urgent need.
 To meet basic counseling needs Counselors will provide Inmates with self-help materials via the existing internal inmate mail system. Utilizing this internal mail system, Inmates may submit completed assignments to their Counselor who then can offer insight and provide feedback.
 The practice of assigning new Inmate Request Forms to counselors will continue. However, the assigned counselor will initially respond via the Inmate Request Form. The Inmate will be provided with self-help materials, encouraged to complete the exercises, and practice the skills; they will be directed
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 43-1 Filed 04/24/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
to submit an Inmate Request Form if the symptoms persist at which time the assigned counselor will
complete a face-to-face assessment. EXHIBIT A-23
 When a medication review is warranted, the Inmate will be provided with a self-report questionnaire that they will be expected to complete and return (see attachment). Recognizing that face-to-face encounters will need to occur to obtain ROI, clarify self-reported information, etc, it is expected that the self-report questionnaire will significantly reduce the number of face-to-face encounters.
 When possible, please utilize Professional Visitor Rooms.  Counselors to evaluate all Special Need Inmates and determine if they are appropriate for a
“maintenance case plan”.  Unit S will be assigned to a single counselor. (caseload weight will be considered)  Routine Welfare Checks will be assigned daily to a specific non-designated counselor.  Groups are suspended. This is our first draft and best effort to address this very dynamic situation. Your patience is appreciated as is your feedback. If you have ideas on how we can modify our practices to better meet the needs of Inmates, please share. As Brene’ reminds us, “clear is kind”. Lea and Brandon
2

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 41 Filed 04/24/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 14
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 20-cv-00977-PAB THOMAS CARRANZA; JESUS MARTINEZ; RICHARD BARNUM; THOMAS LEWIS; MICHAEL WARD; COLBY PROPES; and CHAD HUNTER,
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND EXPEDITED HEARING
[ECF 1] IN COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER [ECF 39]
Defendant Sheriff Steven Reams (“Sheriff”), by and through counsel, Matthew J. Hegarty, Esq., Andrew D. Ringel, Esq., and John F. Peters, Esq., of Hall & Evans, L.L.C., submits his Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for ... Preliminary Injunction” [ECF 1] in Compliance with Court Order [ECF 39] and requests Plaintiffs’ Motion be denied in its entirety,1 as follows:
1 In compliance with the Court’s April 22, 2020, Minute Order [ECF 39], the Sheriff responds to ECF 1 only insofar as it seeks a preliminary injunction.

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 41 Filed 04/24/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 14
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Plaintiffs did not meet the applicable heightened standard for disfavored injunctive relief when their Motion was filed and Plaintiffs’ ability to meet that standard has only weakened, and considerably so, due to the ongoing efforts of the Weld County Sheriff’s Office (“WCSO”) to keep staff, inmates, and the community safe. The Sheriff has previously provided this Court with a thorough discussion of the legal deficiencies in ECF 1, see ECF 26, and the Sheriff directs the Court to that pleading for a full treatment of those issues. Put simply, the WCSO has worked tirelessly to maintain inmate safety and Plaintiffs’ arguments are completely without merit. Plaintiffs are thus unable to satisfy the heightened burden necessary to attain a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs’ Motion must be entirely denied.
II. FACTUAL DEVELOPMENTS SINCE APRIL 10, 2020 The Supplemental Declaration of Captain Matthew Turner of the WCSO Detention Division responsible for the Weld County Jail (“WCJ”) is filed with this Response. [See Turner Dec. , Exh. B].2 Cpt. Turner’s Declaration, along with its extensive attachments comprising emails, protocols, and other documents substantiating its contents, further supports the comprehensive and sustained effort the WCSO, initially outlined in the Sheriff’s Declaration, see Exh. A to ECF 26, to address COVID-19 at the WCJ. Since April 10, 2020, the Sheriff and the WCSO have continually refined and reassessed the policies and protocols of the WCSO to address COVID-19. Cpt. Turner’s
2 Exh. A, Decl. of Sheriff Steven Reams, was attached to ECF 26. [See ECF 26-1 to 26-47.] For clarity, the Sheriff will continue that sequence of exhibits.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 41 Filed 04/24/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 14

Declaration, and the myriad supporting documents, contain a more complete description

of the steps taken, but in compliance with the Court’s order in ECF 39, the Sheriff

summarizes several factual developments since April 10, 2020:

• Masks were issued to all inmates on April 9, 2020. [Exh. B-1].

• On April 13, 2020, the medical unit at the jail, managed by Turn Key Health Clinic (“TKHC”), received COVID-19 test kits, which TKHC had requested on April 3, 2020. [See Exh. B-6; Declaration of Dustin Owens, ¶ 9(m), Exh. C].

• State District Court Judge Thomas Quammen ordered the WCSO to provide information on the WCJ’s medical capabilities, to consider in connection with a COVID19-positive inmate’s motion to reduce bond. [See Exh. B-6]. Dustin Owens, the WCJ Health Services Administrator, employed by TKHC, provided a description of WCJ’s medical capabilities. [See Exh. B-6]. That inmate remains in the WCJ.

• WCSO command staff has continued to stress the importance of making inmates maintain proper sanitation, including cleaning sinks, toilets, and common areas after each use. [See Exh. B-5, B-9].

• Two pregnant inmates were released, on April 14, 2020, based on advice from the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment (“WCDPHE”) that COVID-19 posed a risk to their fetuses. [See Exh. B, ¶ 21].

• Inmates in isolation, i.e. inmates suspected, presumed, or confirmed positive for COVID-19, were tested for COVID-19 on April 14, 2020. [See Exh. B, ¶ 22].

• On April 14, WCSO staff wrote “10 minutes of surface contact time” on every bottle of cleaning spray in the WCJ, on the advice of the WCDPHE. [See Exh. B-11].

•

On April 16, 2020, Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan Coats

continued a prior Chief Justice Directive barring all jury calls in Colorado state courts

through June 1, 2020. [See Exh. B-15]. Similarly, on April 16, 2020, Chief Judge James

Hartmann, Jr. of the 19th Judicial District of Colorado, vacated all court dates through 8

a.m. on June 1, 2020, excepting court dates necessary for public safety (including setting

bonds), and certain court dates for in-custody criminal defendants. [See Exh. B-15].

• On April 17, 2020, WCSO command staff created a video based on a Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) video now played daily in each jail unit giving guidance on how to prevent COVID-19 spread to all WCJ inmates. [See Exh. B-16].

3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 41 Filed 04/24/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 14
• WCJ refused to accept someone who violated a work release sentence, pursuant to a protocol requiring all other sentence options to be exhausted before the WCJ will accept convicts who violate alternative sentences, to reduce new arrivals in the WCJ. [See Exh. B-18].
• District Judges have ordered furloughs of convicts sentenced to the WCJ, ordering releases and returns to serve their remaining sentences later. [E.g., Exh. B-20].3
• On April 20, 2020, Mr. Owens revised the criteria for moving patients out of isolation, per updated CDC guidance. [See Exh. B-21; Owens Dec., ¶ 9(r), Exh. C].
• On April 23, 2020, the WCSO took multiple steps to combat COVID-19, including:
o implementing an order of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (“CDPHE”), by requiring all WCSO deputies, both in the WCJ and in all other capacities, to wear masks whenever they cannot socially distance, wear gloves when appropriate, and maintain a six-foot distance from others whenever feasible [see Exh. B-26, B-28];
o issuing five masks to each deputy staffing the WCJ to allow rotating of masks daily and to permit the other masks four days to decontaminate per CDC guidance [see Exh. B-26, B-28];
o issuing all inmates new masks, and WCSO requested additional masks so each inmate can have two [see Exh. B-29];
o asking Colorado Department of Corrections (“CDOC”) to transport 27 inmates from the WCJ to CDOC, as the WCJ had completed the “DOC COVID19 Screening Tool” for them [see Exh. B-29; see also Exh. B-14 (protocol)].4
3 These judicial decisions are important because of the Sheriff’s lack of authority to modify any sentence or bond for anyone at the WCJ. [See ECF 26, at 21-23].
4 However, the CDOC has determined not to accept any inmates from any Colorado jails including WCJ. [See Exh. B-14].
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 41 Filed 04/24/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 14
The WCSO has also continually assessed how best to house inmates within the
physical limitations of the WCJ.5 Efforts to most safely house inmates include:
• Unit movements for “high risk inmates,” i.e., inmates a TKHC medical professional determined are at particularly high health risk from COVID-19, so these inmates can be housed in a cell by themselves to keep them as safe as possible. (Notably, this list does not include any of the named Plaintiffs.) [See Exh. B-22, B-25].
• The WCJ has continued to use its system, established before April 10, 2020, of placing units on quarantine status after an inmate in the unit tests positive for COVID-19; this quarantine remains for 14 days. After 14 days, the unit is sanitized and moves to a modified general population unit, in which 9 inmates are allowed out of their cells at a time with one deputy, to adhere to the State’s 10-person limit on gatherings. [See Exh. B-23].
• The WCJ continues to have an isolation unit housing inmates suspected, presumptive, or confirmed positive for COVID-19. [See id.].
• As units come out of quarantine, the WCSO continues to assess how best to house inmates, considering inmate health, safety, security, and other necessary considerations. Multiple units have now gone through a full 14-day quarantine period with no inmates showing COVID-19 symptoms. [See generally Exh. B, Exh. B-1 to B-31].
Finally, TKHC continues to monitor guidance from the CDC, the World Health
Organization, the National Commission on Correctional Health Care, and state and local
governments, agencies, and health departments, to implement recommendations and
requirements for the WCJ and other jails to remain in compliance with this guidance, as
5 In compliance with ECF 39, the Sheriff has attached as Exh. B-32 floor plans and pod diagrams of the WCJ for WCJ’s three most common housing unit types. There are a limited number of pod designs in the jail, each of which is used for multiple pods; the different designs in Exh. B-32 are representative of these three types. Due to the obvious security concerns from divulging this information publicly, the exhibits show generic pod layouts and floor plans but do not identify particular pods, the overall floor plan or layout of the WCJ, or other sensitive information that could create a security risk. Moreover, the other WCJ types of housing units are nonstandard and, due to their unique layout and the safety and security concerns which would result from their public disclosure, are unable to be provided to the Court apart from its in camera review. [see Exh. B at 12, ¶ 45(d).]
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 41 Filed 04/24/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 14
much as practicable. [See Exh. C, Owens Decl., ¶¶ 9(q)-(r); Exh. D, Cooper Decl., ¶ 10]. As these TKHC Declarations show, TKHC has put in place numerous procedures and protocols—almost all of which were in place before this lawsuit was filed—to provide inmates with the appropriate level of health care at the WCJ. Moreover, if TKHC medical staff determine they cannot provide level of care necessary to ensure the inmate’s health and safety in the WCJ they are transported to an outside facility.
The steps the WCSO has taken, and continues to take, in collaboration with TKHC, public health officials, and other appropriate experts, show the WCSO has remained vigilant and proactive in protecting the health and safety of inmates and staff in the WCJ, and the community at large.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW As the Sheriff has previously argued [ECF 26, at 5-8], Plaintiffs provide an incorrect standard for a preliminary injunction.6 Plaintiffs must establish: (1) they will suffer irreparable injury unless the relief issues; (2) the threatened injury outweighs whatever damages the relief might cause the Sheriff’s ability to operate the WCJ; (3) such injunctive relief will not be adverse to the public interest; and (4) Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their case. Schrier v. Univ. of Colo., 427 F.3d 1253, 1258 (10th Cir. 2005). Injunctive relief is “extraordinary” and should not issue unless
6 This Court applies the same standard in ruling on a preliminary injunction as on a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), so all the arguments in ECF 26 are equally applicable to this Response. See Tooele Cnty. v. United States, 820 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 2016) (footnote omitted) (citation omitted) (“[TROs] and preliminary injunctions differ in how long they can last. Temporary restraining orders can last no more than fourteen days; preliminary injunctions can last longer.”)
6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 41 Filed 04/24/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 14
the right to relief is “clear and unequivocal.” Kikumura v. Hurley, 242 F.3d 950, 955 (10th Cir. 2001). But here Plaintiffs must also meet the “heightened burden” for injunctive relief where the sought-after relief: (1) disturbs the status quo; (2) is mandatory instead of prohibitory; or (3) affords the movant substantially all the relief it may recover after a full merits trial. SCFC ILC, Inc. v. VISA USA, Inc., 936 F.2d 1096, 1098-99 (10th Cir. 1991); accord O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 973, 975 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (“O Centro”), aff’d on other grounds sub nom., Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006); see also In re HomeAdvisor, Inc. Litig., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141984, at *11-14 (D. Colo. Aug. 20, 2019) (Brimmer, C.J.) (discussing whether injunction disturbs status quo or is mandatory). Plaintiffs “must make a strong showing both with regard to the likelihood of success on the merits and with regard to the balance of harms, and may not rely on our modified likelihood-of-success-on-the-merits standard.” O Centro, 389 F.3d at 976. As set forth in ECF 26, all three bases for this heightened burden apply here. See ECF 26, pp. 7-8.
In addition to this heightened burden, Plaintiffs must, but cannot, meet the additional limitations and requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) applicable to injunctive relief here. [See ECF 26, at 9-14]. Moreover, the important legal principles previously articulated by the Sheriff continue to apply. Namely, this Court must show appropriate deference to the expertise and judgment of jail officials. [ECF 26, at 14-16]. Plaintiffs have misinterpreted applicable conditions of confinement law. [ECF 26, at 16-18]. Both this Court and the Sheriff lack the authority to modify state court sentences and bonds. [ECF 26, at 18-22]. Plaintiffs are required to establish a
7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 41 Filed 04/24/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 14
custom, policy, or practice of the Sheriff violated their constitutional rights, including meeting the applicable causation and state of mind requirements, under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). [ECF 26, at 23-26]. And any purported violation of CDC guidelines is not the equivalent of a constitutional violation. [ECF 26, at 27-28].
IV. ARGUMENT Plaintiffs have not satisfied and cannot satisfy any of the four elements necessary to grant a preliminary injunction. Importantly, the Court must assess Plaintiffs’ claimed entitlement to a preliminary injunction in light of the state of the facts as of April 28, 2020, not as of April 7, 2020. This Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion and deny the requested preliminary injunction as a matter of law. 1. Plaintiffs have no likelihood of success on the merits whatsoever. Plaintiffs have entirely failed to address how they succeed on a claim of municipal liability, Plaintiffs’ only claim. [ECF 26, at 23-27 (providing the requirements for a Plaintiff to prove a claim pursuant to Monell, 436 U.S. 658); id. at 32-33 (discussing Plaintiffs’ complete failure to argue municipal liability in ECF 1)]; see also Waller v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 932 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2019) (analyzing at length the Tenth Circuit municipal liability standard). But Plaintiffs cannot even reach this issue, as they have no likelihood of success on the merits of an underlying Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to jail conditions. [ECF 26, at 16-18 (single applicable standard for Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment jail conditions claims); id. at 29-32 (outlining many of proactive steps taken well before or on April 10, 2020, to combat COVID-19 in the WCJ and explaining these steps prove Sheriff and WCSO were not deliberately indifferent)].
8

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 41 Filed 04/24/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 14
In light of the additional steps the Sheriff and the WCSO have taken since April 10, 2020, as outlined above and in the attachments to this Response, Plaintiffs now have even less of a prospect of success on the merits. The WCSO continues to proactively protect inmate health and safety and has made well more than the “reasonable efforts” necessary to defeat a jail conditions claim. See Despain v. Uphoff, 264 F.3d 965, 975 (10th Cir. 2001) (“If an official is aware of the potential for harm but takes reasonable efforts to avoid or alleviate that harm, he bears no liability under this standard.”).
This conclusion is borne out by the reducing numbers of inmates in isolation and “suspected positive” for COVID-19 in the WCJ. Data compiled by the Sheriff—and sent daily to Plaintiffs’ counsel—in compliance with the Court’s Order Granting In Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ requested expedited discovery, [ECF 36] shows on April 11, 2020, 14 inmates were in isolation in the WCJ, 6 tested positive for COVID-19 as diagnosed by a health care professional, and 9 were designated “suspected positive” by a health care professional. After hovering around similar numbers for several days, as of April 23, 2020, 9 inmates were in isolation in the WCJ, 8 tested positive for COVID-19 as diagnosed by a health care professional, and 1 was designated “suspected positive” by a health care professional.7 While there has been a slight increase in the number of positive cases, this is an understandable consequence of tests confirming some of the medical professionals’ suspected diagnoses. The far more important data point is the number of “suspected positive” cases which dropped dramatically, from 9 to only 1. Fewer
7 Plaintiffs’ counsel possess this data as it was transmitted to them on April 23, 2020, and the email transmission can be provided to the Court upon its request.
9

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 41 Filed 04/24/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 14
suspected positive inmates will by definition lead to fewer future confirmed positive inmates. Simply, the Sheriff’s and WCSO’s efforts to reduce COVID-19 transmission in WCJ have proved successful.
Similarly, several WCJ units which went on 14-day quarantines after having an inmate confirmed positive for COVID-19 have either now completed the 14-day period or are close to doing so. [See generally Exh. B, Exh. B-1 to B-31].8
Finally, as of April 24, 2020, only two of the Plaintiffs for the Fourteenth Amendment claim remain in WCJ custody, and neither Plaintiff for the Eighth Amendment claim remains in custody. Longstanding Tenth Circuit precedent this Court must follow dictates the released Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief (the only type of relief sought in ECF 1) are moot. E.g., Green v. Branson, 108 F.3d 1296, 1300 (10th Cir. 1997). And even were this Court to consider the interests of the putative class to avoid a mootness determination, Plaintiffs’ injunctive relief claim still fails on its merits.
Plaintiffs have no likelihood of success on the merits and certainly cannot make the “strong showing” required for this Court to grant disfavored injunctive relief. But even if Plaintiffs had some minimal likelihood of proving their claims, they have neither argued nor have any likelihood of success on their municipal liability claims which, it bears repeating, are the only types of claims they advance in this litigation. See generally Monell, 436 U.S. 658, and its progeny, including Waller, 932 F.3d 1277.
8 In this context, the Sheriff notes it cannot be the constitutional standard for the Sheriff to have to prevent all inmates from getting COVID-19 in the WCJ or any spread of the disease in the WCJ population. A comparison of the Sheriff’s efforts to the ongoing public spread of COVID-19 in various locations publicly reported demonstrates the overall efficacy of the WCJ’s efforts. [See Exh. E, Greeley Tribune Story about JBS].
10

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 41 Filed 04/24/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 14
2. Decreasing numbers of COVID-19 cases in the WCJ show Plaintiffs do not face irreparable harm
The Sheriff acknowledges falling ill with COVID-19 poses real and serious health risks to many people worldwide, including Plaintiffs. To the Sheriff’s knowledge, however, none of the Plaintiffs is sick with COVID-19. Further, contrary to Plaintiffs’ claim they face uniquely high health risks from their co-morbidities, none of them were included in the list of inmates WCJ medical staff identified as high risk for dangers from COVID-19. [See generally Exh. B-22, B-25]. And those Plaintiffs no longer in the WCJ face no risk of contracting COVID-19 from the WCJ, let alone irreparable harm from such a risk. Further, as the objective medical data outlined above shows, the WCJ has successfully reduced the risk of inmates contracting COVID-19. Considering the heightened showing needed for this disfavored injunctive relief, Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate the current WCJ conditions create any greater risk of irreparable harm than exists in Colorado generally.
3. The threatened injury does not outweigh potential harm to WCJ and WCSO. As previously argued [ECF 26, at 33-35], Plaintiffs entirely fail to acknowledge the many identifiable harms to the WCJ from Plaintiffs’ requested injunctive relief. These multiple potential harms weigh even more heavily against a preliminary injunction. Expenses to taxpayers could be nearly uncapped; the Court would be required to intervene in the minutiae of jail management continuously to address changing circumstances and updated public health recommendations; and the Sheriff’s legal right to maintain control over the WCJ would be severely compromised, to list just a few potential harms. Plaintiffs cannot make the “strong showing” required for the Court to
11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 41 Filed 04/24/20 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 14
grant this disfavored injunctive relief. The Court must conclude Plaintiffs have not met their burden on this “balance of harms” factor.
4. Plaintiffs’ requested injunctive relief would be adverse to the public interest because it unreasonably threatens public safety.
The PLRA requires this Court “give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety” in considering injunctive relief that would release prisoners. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); [ECF 26 at 9-14]. Plaintiffs disregarded this requirement and do not discuss public safety or acknowledge public safety risks at any point. As the floor plans and pod diagrams in Exh. B-32 show, it is neither possible nor advisable for the WCSO to patrol the WCJ to ensure all inmates are at least six feet from all other people at all times. Plaintiffs ask, in the alternative, this Court order prisoners released from the WCJ. [ECF 1, at 7]. Beyond the multiple legal impediments to such an order [ECF 26, at 9-14, 18-23], releasing inmates would create an unjustifiable public safety risk. Decisions about the total number of inmates remaining in the WCJ are therefore better left to the state judges who have been carefully examining inmates’ requests for release. [See Exh. B-6, B-20]. This Court should be mindful of comity and federalism in this context.
5. If the Court orders injunctive relief, significant security should be required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c) allows the Court to order a security as a condition of any injunctive relief “to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” The Sheriff asserts any preliminary injunction is likely to cause the taxpayers of Weld County to bear significant costs. Thus, to compensate those taxpayers for what could be months of potentially improvident relief, the Court should order posting of a security interest of at least $1,000,000, which is less than two
12

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 41 Filed 04/24/20 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 14
weeks’ cost of running the WCJ. [ECF 26 at 39 n. 13]. The basis for a security is further elaborated in the Sheriff’s prior submission. [ECF 26 at 39-40].
V. CONCLUSION In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, as well as based on all the previously articulated arguments, authorities, and evidence in ECF 26, Defendant Sheriff Steven Reams, the elected Sheriff for the County of Weld, State of Colorado, respectfully requests this Court enter an Order: denying Plaintiffs’ application for a preliminary injunction in this matter; and granting all other relief deemed just and proper. Respectfully submitted this 24th day of April, 2020.
s/ Matthew J. Hegarty Matthew J. Hegarty, Esq. Andrew D. Ringel, Esq. John F. Peters, Esq. of HALL & EVANS, LLC 1001 17th Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 T: (303) 628-3300 F: (303) 628-3368 hegartym@hallevans.com ringela@hallevans.com petersj@hallevans.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
13

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 41 Filed 04/24/20 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF)

I hereby certify that on this 24th day of April, 2020, on or before 12:00 PM MDT, a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND EXPEDITED HEARING [ECF 1] IN COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER [ECF 39] was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court which will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses:

Darold W. Killmer David A. Lane Andrew Joseph McNulty Michael Paul Fairhurst KILLMER LANE & NEWMAN LLP dkillmer@kln-law.com dlane@kln-law.com amcnulty@kln-law.com mfairhurst@kln-law.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Thomas Carranza, Jesus Martinez, Michael Ward, Colby Propes, and Chad Hunter

David George Maxted MAXTED LAW LLC dave@maxtedlaw.com
Jamie Hughes Hubbard STIMSON STANCIL LABRANCHE HUBBARD LLC hubbard@sslhlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Thomas Carranza, Jesus Martinez, Michael Ward, Colby Propes, and Chad Hunter

Daniel David Williams Lauren Elizabeth Groth HUTCHINSON BLACK & COOK, LLC williams@hbcboulder.com groth@hbcboulder.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Richard Barnum and Thomas Lewis

Mark Silverstein Rebecca Teitelbaum Wallace Sara R. Neel AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNIONDENVER msilverstein@aclu-co.org rtwallace@aclu-co.org sneel@aclu-co.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs Richard Barnum and Thomas Lewis

s/ Amber Tamborello, Paralegal at HALL & EVANS, L.L.C.

14

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 13
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: 20-cv-977-PAB THOMAS CARRANZA, et al.,
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE [DOC. #26] AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE [DOC. #41]
1. Defendant’s actions have not been sufficient to moot1 any of Plaintiffs’ requested relief. Due process requires that detainees in a jail be protected from conditions that “pose an
unreasonable risk of serious damage to . . . future health.” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993). Plaintiffs all face a heightened risk of serious illness or death if they contract COVID-19, which is the very definition of a “substantial” risk of “serious harm.”
[Defendant’s] arguments fail to address the stark reality of this particular global public health crisis. In the face of a deadly pandemic with no vaccine, no cure, limited testing capacity, and the ability to spread quickly through asymptomatic human vectors, a “generalized risk” is a “substantial risk” of catching the COVID19 virus for any group of human beings in highly confined conditions[.] Malam v. Adducci, No. 20-10829, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59407, at *26-28 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 5, 2020). It is indisputable “that the most effective way of preventing [COVID-19] infection is
1 Unlike plaintiffs in Nellson v. Barnhart, Plaintiffs’ requested relief would add “additional measures beyond defendants' current screening, testing, and isolation procedures.” No. 20-cv00756-PAB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66971, at *15 (D. Colo. Apr. 16, 2020). Further, as discussed below, there is a demonstrably wide gulf between Defendant’s purported policies and Defendant’s actual practices related to mitigation of the spread of COVID-19 in the jails.
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 13
avoiding interaction with those who are infected—more specifically, not touching them or the
things they touch, and not breathing the air they breathe.” Essien v. Barr, Civil Action No. 20-cv-
1034-WJM, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72422, at *14-15 (D. Colo. Apr. 24, 2020).2 As such, it
cannot pass constitutional muster that Plaintiffs, who are medically vulnerable, continue to be
forced to share facilities with others who may be infected with a deadly virus, and particularly be
forced to do so without putting in place basic, evidence-based measures to keep them safe. Gates
v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1300-1303 (5th Cir. 1994) (cited with approval in Helling, 509 U.S. at
34).3 Defendants’ failure to take the below-outlined basic measures, all of which Plaintiffs’ expert
says are necessary to protect high risk inmates, unreasonably risks Plaintiffs’ lives.
First, Defendant has failed to take the single most important measure to stop the spread of
COVID-19: physical distancing4 of all inmates from one another (and staff when not necessitated
by facility security) within the Weld County Jail.5 Defendant has failed to take the following
reasonable steps (relating to physical distancing) to protect Plaintiffs from COVID-19:
2 The conditions in the Weld County Jail are worse than those described by the court in Essien, where the court held that detainees had demonstrated that it was likely that they would catch the virus where they spent “sixteen hours a day in a 7 x 9 foot cell—usually two to a cell”; shared “a toilet and a sink”; shared cells that were part of a “pod that currently houses 49 total detainees” where those in the pod shared space that is “only one half [the size] of a basketball court”; shared “seven shower stalls, which are cleaned once per day” with the other members of their pod; and received only one “paper facemask” with no certainty as to when it would “be replaced” they. 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72422, at *14-15. 3 See also Forbes v. Edgar, 112 F.3d 262, 266 (7th Cir. 1997); Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468, 477 (2d Cir. 1996). 4 The key feature of physical distancing is that individuals be able to keep at least 6 feet apart from other individuals. Exhibit 1, Expert Declaration Of Carlos Franco-Paredes, p. 10-11. 5 Again, Plaintiffs request that, should Defendant not be able to ensure that Plaintiffs are protected from COVID-19 exposure through physical distancing, this Court order the transfer of a sufficient number inmates to electronic home monitoring to allow for appropriate physical distancing within the Weld County Jail. This Court, sitting as a single judge, may order that Defendant transfer prisoners to a safe facility or form of custody of his choosing. An order that prisoners be transferred to receive adequate medical care or to be removed from areas where they would be exposed to deadly diseases is not a “prisoner release order” within the meaning of the PLRA and,
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 13
(1) Plaintiffs (individuals that are considered high-risk by accepted medical guidelines) have not been meaningfully physically distanced from other inmates, some of whom are likely to be infected with COVID-19. Ex. 1, pp. 1-3, 9-11.6 Currently, in different units, and particularly in the B and C units and in one of the transition units, individuals with high-risk comorbidities are housed in cells with one to three other cellmates. Id., p. 8.
(2) High-risk individuals are not being identified, prioritized for single-celled housing, or provided additional protective measure to increase physical distancing. Id. Instead, the highrisk individuals are housed and treated like the other inmates. Id.7 This was “confusing” to Dr. Franco-Paredes given that, in most of the units, there are many empty cells that remained unused, while other cells hold two to four people. Id.
Second, Defendant has failed to implement appropriate policies and protocols to identify
inmates who are possibly carrying COVID-19 and quarantine those inmates from other
individuals. Defendant’s isolation practices are focused singularly on highly symptomatic
inmates, which is a patently unreasonable response in the face of research reflecting that at least
40% of viral spread is caused by asymptomatic people. This phenomenon is playing out in
Colorado’s prisons right now.8 And, as Plaintiffs’ expert explains, it is likely playing out in the
Weld County Jail, where asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic inmates in general population
are likely contagious and spreading the virus. Plaintiffs’ expert observed no practices that
therefore, may be issued by a single-judge court. Under the PLRA, a “prison” is a “Federal, State, or local facility that incarcerates or detains.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(5). Plaintiffs are not asking that they be sent anywhere other than a safe facility that incarcerates them—that is a place that “confin[es]” them, see Black’s Law Dictionary, Incarceration (11th ed. 2019) —and, therefore, they do not seek a “prisoner release order” under the PLRA. See Gray v. Cnty. of Riverside, No. 13 C 0444, Dkt. 191, at pp. 4-5 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2020) (recognizing that an order directing a sheriff to transfer detainees to a safer location is not a “prisoner release order”). 6 Coronel v. Decker, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53954, 2020 WL 1487274, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2020) (finding that containment efforts were inadequate where it took no "specific action to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to high-risk individuals," such as isolation or "special safety or hygiene protocols"). 7 Defendant’s response admits that Plaintiffs (who are clearly vulnerable individuals) have not been identified by Defendant’s supposed protocol for identifying medical vulnerable individuals. [Doc. #41], p. 11. 8 This is no more evident than in the Sterling Correctional Facility where “the Department of Corrections performed prevalence testing after only a few confirmed cases of COVID-19 and a minimal number of symptomatic inmates” and the result was that “138 out of 255 inmates tested positive for the virus.” Ex. 1, p. 9.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 13
addressed the likelihood of asymptomatic inmates or ensured immediate isolation and testing of
individuals who had one or more mild symptoms of COVID-19. Ex. 1, p. 8. Inmates who report
fever and cough in the Weld County Jail still are provided with Tylenol, rather than COVID-19
screening, preventative isolation, and testing. Id. Moreover, it is clear that some individuals who
were admitted to the medical isolation unit (Unit 11) of the Weld County Jail were released from
medical isolation in around a week’s time (less than the CDC-recommended quarantine period)
and were placed in cells with other inmates who had not been in quarantine. Id.
Third, Defendant continues to fail to implement daily thorough and professional
disinfecting and sanitizing of the Weld County Jail. Defendant implicitly admits that he is not
having the Jail professionally cleaned (and not on an adequately regular basis). [Doc. #34], p. 34.
Plaintiffs’ expert learned as much during his visit to the Jail. Ex. 1, p. 9; Cristian A.R. v. Decker,
Civil Action No. 20-3600, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66658, at *34-35 (D.N.J. Apr. 12, 2020) (noting failure to clean posed unreasonable risk to inmates of contracting COVID-19).9
Finally, while there has been incremental progress on some measures that Plaintiffs
requested when they filed this lawsuit, “as prisons and courts around the country are beginning to
9 The Court in Cristian A.R. found unconstitutional conditions that are markedly better than those in the Weld County Jail: “Petitioners spend 23.5 hours a day in cramped cells that they have to share with another person and the remaining thirty minutes out of their cells in common areas. It is during those thirty minutes that the detainees are at high risk for COVID-19 exposure and transmission. That brief period is the only time they have each day to take showers, make telephone calls to family members and attorneys, visit the commissary, and use recreation areas. Coming into close contact with frequently used items and shared spaces is unavoidable. Respondents do not state the Facilities clean and sanitize the common areas and frequentlytouched common items in-between each period during which new detainees and inmates leave their cells. Instead, they provide that cleaning occurs at least three or four times per day. Accordingly, even crediting the Facilities’ increased efforts to clean and disinfect shared spaces, Respondents cannot dispute that many, if not all, detainees use the common areas and objects inbetween cleanings and are being exposed to potentially contaminated surfaces. Detainees also report that corrections officers’ and medical staff's use of gloves and masks is inconsistent and certainly not in line with the CDC's recommendations, further compounding their risk of exposure.”
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 13
recognize, such measures are insufficient to stem deadly prison outbreaks.” Malam, 2020 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 59407, at *26-28. The requested relief that has been partially implemented includes:
(1) Providing hygiene supplies, including supplies to wash hands and disinfect common areas, to inmates at all times and free of charge, a. While hygiene products have been provided to inmates, cleaning is left entirely to inmates and is voluntary; shared toilets and sinks are often not cleaned between uses; staff do not clean nor do they mandate that inmates clean between uses, Ex. 1, p. 9;
(2) Providing personal protection equipment, including but not limited to masks, to all staff members and inmates, a. While surgical masks have been provided to inmates, they have been forced to wear the same mask for approximately 10-12 days, in contravention of public health guidelines Ex. 1, pp.. 9, 11;
(3) Taking particularly heightened precautions with respect to food handling and delivery, a. There is no evidence that the inmates who are handling food are exempt from the above-outlined problems within the Weld County Jail, including lengthy use of the same personal protective equipment and failure to appropriately socially distance within food preparation areas;
(4) Providing accurate, up-to-date educational and informational materials regarding sanitation and prevention of COVID-19, the status of how COVID-19 is affecting the facility including the number of infected inmates and staff, and daily access to news reports regarding COVID-19, a. While Defendant has provided a video with educational materials, it has not informed inmates about the status of how COVID-19 is affecting the facility.
2. The constitutionally inadequate COVID-19 response at the Weld County Jail is fully attributable to the final policymaker for the Jail: Defendant Reams.10
2.1 Defendant Reams is a final policymaker.
Defendant “is a final policymaker with regard to [the Weld County] jail, such that his
actions ‘may fairly be said to be those of the municipality.’” Lopez v. LeMaster, 172 F.3d 756,
763 (10th Cir. 1999) (quoting Bd. of the Cty. Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1997)); see
10 Contrary to Defendant’s arguments, Plaintiffs need not plead a separate claim to implicate Defendant under Monell. In fact, doing so is improper. Municipal liability is simply another theory of liability for a particular constitutional claim, not a stand-alone legal claim. See, e.g., Whiting v. City of Cathedral City, No. EDCV 13-250-BRO(CW), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64002, at *12 n.2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2014) (“Supervisor liability or municipal liability is not a separate claim for relief or cause of action, but a theory on why a supervisor or municipal defendant is liable on a claim or cause of action.”); Romero v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, 202 F. Supp. 3d 1223, 1267 (D.N.M. 2016) (Browning, J.).
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 13
also Layton v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 512 F. App’x 861, 870-72 (10th Cir. 2013). A decision by municipal policymakers on a single occasion could satisfy the “official policy” requirement of Monell. Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986). Where action is directed by a “final policymaker,” the municipality is equally responsible whether that action is taken only once or repeatedly. Id. at 484-85.11
Here, Defendant possesses final policymaking authority in the operation of the Weld County Jail and his decisions regarding the Jail’s response to COVID-19, in and of themselves, are the decisions of Weld County. “[F]inal policymaking authority is a legal issue to be determined by the court based on local and state law.” Randle v. City of Aurora, 69 F.3d 441, 447 (10th Cir. 1995) Colorado law explicitly grants that Defendant, as the elected Sheriff of Weld County, “shall have charge and custody of the jails of the county, and of the prisoners in the jails, and shall supervise them himself or herself or through a deputy or jailer.” C.R.S. § 30-10-511. Defendant’s authority as to the operation of the Weld County Jail is unlimited and unchecked.12 In accordance with the undeniable fact that Sheriffs have complete authority over the operation of their county jail, courts have consistently found that Colorado sheriffs are final policymakers when it comes to the operation of jails. E.g. Cortese v. Black, 838 F. Supp. 485, 495-96 (D. Colo. 1993) (holding that Larimer County Sheriff was a “final policymaker”); Carrillo v. Suthers, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184359, *32 (D. Colo. December 29, 2014) (noting that “a sheriff is typically the final policymaker for matters concerning the operations of a county jail”).
The circumstances of Defendant’s authority make clear that he is a final policymaker for the Weld County Jail’s response to COVID-19. Defendant is in charge of the day to day decisions
11 See Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 736-38 (1989); City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112 (1988). 12 See, e.g., C.R.S. §§ 30-10-503, 504, 506 and 522.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 13
at Weld County Jail -- i.e., Defendant is not “meaningfully constrained by policies not of that official’s own making,” Defendant’s decisions are “final -- i.e., are [not] subject to any meaningful review,” and the decision in how to respond to COVID-19 is “within the realm of [his] grant of authority” at state law. Randle, 69 F.3d at 448. Defendant makes no argument that he answers to anyone, let alone another governing body within Weld County, for his decisions within the Weld County Jail. In fact, Defendant voluminously outlines the unilateral actions he has taken within the Jail within the last two months. See [Doc. #26]; [Doc. #41]. This is quintessential final policymaker behavior.
2.2 Defendant Reams has been, and continues to be, deliberately indifferent. The deliberate indifference exhibited by Defendant prior to the filing of this lawsuit is outlined extensively in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. [Doc. #1], pp. 40-45. Then, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit. If Defendant had any argument before that he was unaware of the deficiencies in his response to COVID-19, the Complaint itself served to put him on notice. And, Defendant has received further notice from the supplemental filings (including declarations). Yet, in the ensuing weeks, Defendant has abjectly failed in a number of regards (as outlined, supra, Section 1). The failure to remedy ongoing constitutional violations is “evidence of deliberate indifference on the part of a municipality.” Layton, 512 F. App’x at 870-72.13 Defendant’s deliberate indifference has been clear. And, as a final policymaker, Defendant’s conscious disregard, alone, of the risks presented by COVID-19 is enough to support municipal liability. Id. at 872. 2.3 Defendant’s inaction continues to unreasonably risk the spread of COVID-19.
13 See also Brown, 520 U.S. at 407 (“[A finalpolicymaker’s] continued adherence to an approach that they know or should know has failed to prevent tortious conduct by employees may establish the conscious disregard for the consequences of their action—the ‘deliberate indifference’— necessary to trigger municipal liability.” (quoting City of Canton, 489 U.S. at 390 n.10)).
7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 13
Defendant Reams’ inaction, in the face of mounting evidence that a serious outbreak was likely to transmit COVID-19 to Plaintiffs, is the “moving force” behind the violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Brown, 520 U.S. at 404. Defendant’s continuing failure to take the aboveoutlined appropriate action demonstrates a “direct causal link,” see Brown, 520 U.S. at 404, between Defendant’s (in)action and Plaintiffs’ risk of catching COVID-19 and suffering serious illness or death. Layton, 512 F. App’x at 870-72 (finding deliberate indifference where sheriff knew of problems with the jail’s medical care, could have “taken any number of possible remedial actions”, but chose not to act). Therefore, if this Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are exposed to an unreasonable and unconstitutional risk of harm from COVID-19 by the Weld County Jail’s lack of response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Defendant is liable as the final policymaker for the Jail.14 3. Plaintiffs’ requested relief complies with the PLRA’s requirements.
Contrary to Defendant’s assertions, an injunction ordering Plaintiffs’ requested relief meets the criteria required by the PLRA. The PLRA’s guidance “must be undertaken in light of both the magnitude of existing constitutional violations and the available alternative remedies.” Morales Feliciano v. Rullan, 378 F.3d 42, 54 (1st Cir. 2004). Plaintiffs ask that this Court “do no more than to order [correctional] officials to [comply with the constitution] in general terms and to verify that the plan they submit satisfies the relevant constitutional standards[.]” Westefer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679, 686 (7th Cir. 2012). It is not this Court’s duty to micromanage Defendant’s implementation of Plaintiffs’ requested relief (and, Defendant himself asks this Court not to do so in accordance with principles of federalism and comity, [Doc. #26]. p. 39). Plaintiffs have not
14 See Layton, 512 F. App’x at 870-72 (holding that a sheriff’s “willingness—demonstrated by inaction—to permit seriously ill inmates to remain unmonitored in their cells evinces deliberate indifference for purposes of establishing municipal liability”).
8

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 13
outlined hyper-specific relief but rather have asked the Court to order “defendant to draft and
promulgate a plan, which leaves to the defendant discretion to determine the details of how to
deliver the relief ordered.” Pierce v. County of Orange, 761 F. Supp. 2d 915, 947-48 (C.D. Cal.
2011).
Further, with respect to the weight this Court must give to any adverse impact on public
safety or the operation of a criminal justice system, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1), public safety is
served by the requested relief because “[c]learly the public has an interest in preventing the
further spread of COVID-19.” Rafael L.O., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62389, 2020 WL 1808843, at
*9.15 And, as noted above, Plaintiffs requested relief provides Defendant with flexibility to ensure
efficiency.
4. Irreparable Harm,16 Balance of Equities, and the Public Interest.17
15 See also Bent v. Barr, No. 19-cv-06123-DMR, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62792, at *22-24 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2020) (“Given that additional burdens on the health system in this crisis may lead to a greater number of deaths among the public, public health considerations cannot be ignored in assessing… risk to the community.”). 16 As the Supreme Court observed in Helling, “it would be odd to deny an injunction to inmates who plainly proved an unsafe, life-threatening condition in their prison on the ground that nothing yet had happened to them.” 509 U.S. at 33.Plaintiffs “who all suffer from underlying medical conditions, may have a 20% chance of death if they contract COVID-19 (according to preliminary data from China), and they are detained in facilities where the virus is still spreading.” Cristian A.R. v. Decker, Civil Action No. 20-3600, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66658, at *38-39 (D.N.J. Apr. 12, 2020). They “cannot practically adhere to social distancing guidelines or the adequate level of personal hygiene, that have been touted as the most effective means to thwart the spread of the virus.” See Rafael L.O., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62389, 2020 WL 1808843, at *8. Certainly the threat of death qualifies as irreparable harm. 17 Defendant spends a majority of his briefing on these subjects, leading the court on a wild goose chase. (Plaintiff does not request the release of inmates but, as a last resort, Plaintiff asks this Court to transfer inmates to home confinement, which is dramatically different than release). With that being said, Plaintiffs acknowledge that Defendant and the public have an interest in ensuring Plaintiffs’ appearance at future court proceedings as well as preventing danger to the community should they be transferred to home confinement. However, numerous courts “have recognized the shifting nature of these interests in light of the COVID-19 pandemic” and held that even release serves the public interest. Bent, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62792, at *22-24 (collecting cases).
9

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 13

Plaintiffs acknowledge that Defendant and the public have an interest in institutional

security, community safety, and the efficient use of government resources. However, Plaintiffs

requests will not affect these interests because Defendant has full authority as to how to

implement them. And, a chorus of courts now recognized that a risk to public safety “requires

considering all factors,” including the “substantial medical and security challenges [that] would

almost certainly arise” in the event of a COVID-19 outbreak in a prison or detention

facility. Bent, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62792, at *22-24 (collecting cases). Simply put, preventing

the spread of COVID-19 in the Weld County Jail is in line with the interests that Defendant

raises: it will benefit public safety, reduce use of government resources (preventative medicine is

always cheaper than more intensive procedures), and increase institutional security (should the

outbreak escalate a shortage of healthy deputies will almost certainly occur).

5. This Court should not require bond in this case.18

Defendant cites to no authority in his request for $1,000,000 bond. There is precedent,

however, supporting Plaintiffs request that no bond be required in this case. 11A Charles Alan

Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 2954 n.29 (3d ed., Apr. 2016 update) (citing civil

rights cases where the bond was excused or significantly reduced).

6. Conclusion and Requested Relief.

Plaintiffs have attached an amended order, outlining only the relief that is essential (and

narrowly tailored) to ensuring that Plaintiffs are not exposed to an unreasonable risk of

contracting COVID-19. See Exhibit 2.

Dated: April 28, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

18 Plaintiffs are inmates who are being held in jail because they cannot afford bond, and they do not seek damages in this lawsuit.
10

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 13
s/ Andy McNulty Andy McNulty Michael P. Fairhurst David A. Lane Darold W. Killmer KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP 1543 Champa St. Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 571-1000 (303) 571-1001 Facsimile amcnulty@kln-law.com mfairhurst@kln-law.com dlane@kln-law.com dkillmer@kn-law.com
and
David G. Maxted Maxted Law LLC 1543 Champa Street Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 720-717-0877 Fax: 720-500-1251 dave@maxtedlaw.com
and
Jamie Hughes Hubbard STIMSON STANCIL LABRANCHE HUBBARD, LLC Phone: 720.689.8909 Email: hubbard@sslhlaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs Carranza, Martinez, Propes, Ward and Hunter
Mark Silverstein Rebecca T. Wallace Sara R. Neel AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF COLORADO 303 E. 17th Avenue, Suite 350 Denver, Colorado 80203 (720) 402-3114 msilverstein@aclu-co.org rtwallace@aclu-co.org sneel@aclu-co.org
11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 13
and Daniel D. Williams Lauren E. Groth HUTCHINSON BLACK AND COOK, LLC 921 Walnut Street, Suite 200 Boulder, Colorado 80302 (303) 442-6514 Williams@hbcboulder.com Groth@hbcboulder.com In cooperation with the ACLU Foundation of Colorado Counsel for Plaintiffs Barnum and Lewis
12

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 28, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE [DOC. #26] AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE [DOC. #41] with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification to the following counsel.

Matthew Hegarty Andrew Ringel John Peters HALL & EVANS LLC 1001 17th Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 hegartym@hallevans.com ringel@hallevans.com jpeters@hallevans.com

/s/ Charlotte Bocquin Scull Paralegal

13

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 39
EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 39
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: 20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH
THOMAS CARRANZA, et al.
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons,
v.
STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
EXPERT DECLARATION OF CARLOS FRANCO-PAREDES
A) The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic The catastrophic consequences of the current COVID-19 pandemic in terms of human
and social disruption costs obeys to two major factors: (a) the transmissibility of this infection and (b) the severity of the disease in human populations. Globally, as of today, there are 2,790,936 confirmed cases and 195,920 deaths. In the U.S., there are an increasing number of COVID-19 cases and deaths. Since March 16, 2020, the epidemiologic curve demonstrates a logarithmic increase in the number of cases with many major epicenters of transmission as it has occurred in the Pacific Northwest, New York, New Jersey, Florida, California, and Louisiana. Every U.S. state is dealing with COVID-19 cases and the number of deaths continue to pile up. As of today, there are approximately 890,524 cases and 51,017 deaths demonstrating that community-based transmission clearly continues to occur.
B) Medically vulnerable populations
There is growing number of confirmed cases in the U.S., increasing number of hospitalizations and admissions to intensive care units, and many deaths. In this wave of the pandemic or in subsequent ones, it is likely the number of infected individuals may continue to occur.
According to the CDC, there are groups of individuals deemed at high risk to developing severe disease and dying from this infection including those above 50 years of age and those with underlying medical conditions (regardless of their age) (See Table). These cases are also amplifiers or hyper-spreaders of the infection since they tend to have high viral concentrations in their respiratory secretions.
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 39
The clinical experience in China, South Korea, Italy, France, and Spain has shown that 80% of confirmed cases tend to occur in persons 30-69 years of age regardless of having any underlying medical conditions. Of these, 20% develop severe clinical manifestations or become critically ill. Among those with severe clinical manifestations regardless of their age or underlying medical conditions, progress to respiratory failure, septic shock, and multiorgan dysfunction requiring intensive care support including the use of mechanical ventilator support. The overall case fatality rate is 10-14% of those who develop severe disease. In China, 80% of deaths occurred among adults > 60 years.
As of March 16, 2020, cases of COVID-19 in the U.S. reported by the CDC shows that 31% of COVID-19 cases, 45% of hospitalizations, and 80% of deaths occurred among adults aged > 65 years of age. Case-fatality in persons aged >85 ranging from 10-27%, followed by 311% among persons aged 65-84 years, 1% among persons aged 55-64 and <1% among persons aged 20-54 years of age.

Table 1. Risk factors for developing severe disease and death

Age groups at high risk of developing severe >50 years (1% CFR)*

disease and dying without underlying medical

conditions

60-69 years (3.6% CFR)

High risk groups of dying with underlying medical conditions regardless of their age

70-79 years (8% CFR) -Cardiovascular disease (congestive heart failure, history of myocardial infarction, history of cardiac surgery)

-Systemic Arterial Hypertension (High Blood Pressure)

Chronic respiratory disease (asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease including chronic bronchitis or emphysema, or other pulmonary diseases)

-Diabetes mellitus

-Cancer

2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 39
-Chronic Liver Disease
-Chronic Kidney Disease
-Autoimmune Diseases
-Severe Psychiatric Illness **
-History of transplantation
-Immune suppression (HIV/AIDS, glucocorticoids, other immunosuppressant drugs, history of smoking)
-Pregnancy
*CFR= Case Fatality Rate is an indicator used during outbreaks to identify the number of individuals who succumb out of those who become infected ** In South Korea, 20% of deaths occurred in what they defined as Psychiatric Illness (J Korean Med Sci 2020; 35(10): e112).
Preliminary data has shown that 20 percent of people in high-risk categories who have contracted COVID-19 have died Reports by the Chinese CDC, demonstrates that the case fatality rate is highest among critical cases in the high-risk categories with COVID at 49%. case fatality was higher for patients with comorbidities: 10.5% for those with cardiovascular disease, 7% for diabetes, and 6% each for chronic respiratory disease, hypertension, and cancer. Case fatality for patients who developed respiratory failure, septic shock, or multiple organ dysfunction was 49%. For people with these risk factors, COVID-19 can severely damage lung tissue, which requires an extensive period of rehabilitation, and in some cases, can cause a permanent loss of respiratory capacity. There is preliminary evidence that persons with COVID-19 and recovering from severe disease and progress to extensive pulmonary disease including Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). Long term sequelae of those with sepsis, ARDS and respiratory failure identified in the literature include long-term cognitive impairment, psychological morbidities, neuromuscular weakness, pulmonary dysfunction, and ongoing healthcare utilization with reduced quality of life and need for rehabilitation services. COVID-19 may also target the heart muscle, causing a medical condition called myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle. Myocarditis can affect the heart muscle and electrical system, reducing the heart’s ability to pump. This reduction can lead to rapid or abnormal heart rhythms in the short term, and long-term heart failure that limits exercise tolerance and the ability to work.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 39
The full description of the pathogenesis of COVID-19 requires to be completely elucidated. However, there is clinical evidence that in addition to the severe lung injury associated to this viral infection, some persons may also develop myocardial involvement that appears to be the result of either direct viral infection or micro-thrombosis of the myocardial vasculature. From the published case reports, myocarditis caused by this viral pathogen is associated with congestive heart failure, cardiac arrhythmias and deathj. Similar to other viral myocarditis, most patients may develop long-term myocardial damagek.
Among persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 and developing COVID-19 severe disease systemic inflammation is associated with adverse outcomes. However, there is evidence that the use of corticosteroids have not shown benefit and they might be more likely to harm when administered in persons with ARDS caused by COVID-19. Similar to influenza infection, acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by the respiratory epithelial membrane dysfunction leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome. Preliminary evidence from case reports and small cases series from China and South Korea confirm that there is minimal inflammation and evidence of cell necrosis in the form of apoptosis of the respiratory epithelium. The resultant tissue hypoxia is responsible and potential concomitant bacterial sepsis contribute to multiorgan dysfunction and death. If a patient with COVID-19 develops myocarditis, cardiogenic shock caused by fulminant myocarditis may also contribute to the overall occurrence of multiple organ failure.
Patients can show the first symptoms of infection in as little as two days after exposure, and their condition can seriously deteriorate in as little as five days or sooner
There is evidence of substantial undocumented infection facilitating the rapid dissemination of novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 which is responsible for 79% of documented cases of CoVID19 in China. Once an individual is exposed to this virus from either a symptomatic individual (21% of cases) or from asymptomatic individuals (79% of cases), the shortest incubation period is 3 days with a median incubation period of 5.1 (95% CI 4.5 to 5.8 days). Overall, 97.5% of persons who develop symptoms, do so within 11.5 days of the initial exposure.
Most persons with COVID-19 who develop severe disease do so immediately after admission or within 3-5 days from their initial presentation and representing 53% of those requiring intensive care unit admissions and advanced supportive care.
There is sufficient evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has an overwhelming impact in healthcare utilization in all settings (China, South Korea, Italy, France, Germany, and others). In the U.S., current evidence demonstrates that COVID-19 can result in severe disease, including hospitalization (31%) and admission to an intensive care unit (53% of ICU admissions). To respond to this overwhelming demand in ICU admissions, there is a need for a multidisciplinary approach that is time-consuming and requires highly-trained personnel including pulmonary and critical care physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, phlebotomists, social workers, case managers. The care of this group of patients also requires subspecialists including nephrologists, infectious disease physicians, hematologists, hospitalists, and others. Patients on mechanical ventilation or requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation require additional staff including perfusionists and 1:1 dedicated nursing care. Currently, many medical centers in urban and rural settings in the U.S. are functioning at full capacity. It is therefore important to note that in the potential outbreak occurring within an immigration detention center, the number of detainees that will require transfer outside the facility for specialized care may exceed the capacity of local
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 39
healthcare systems. This is particularly important in rural and semirural settings where many immigration detention centers are located, and where they may have contact with a limited number of local medical centers.
Numerous organizations and research studies have used the age of 55 to define the lower limit of older detainees at risk of developing severe COVID-19 disease. This consensus is based on the fact that detained people have consistently been identified as having higher levels of health problems that reflect 10-15 years more progressed than chronological age.
C) Jails and prisons in the U.S. are increasingly becoming epicenters of COVID-19 transmission
Over my 20 years of experience as an infectious disease clinician, I have provided care at outpatient clinics and during inpatient consultation services in infectious diseases to a large number of patients residing in jail and prison populations. A copy of my CV is presented in Exhibit A.
As an infectious disease clinician with a public health degree in the dynamics of infectious disease epidemics and pandemics, I am concerned about the inevitable spread of COVID-19 in jails, prisons, community corrections facilities, and juvenile detention centers. The conditions in these facilities do not allow for appropriate infection control protocols and will make the current COVID-19 pandemic worse. Incarcerated populations have higher rates of underlying illness and, by extension, will have a higher case fatality rate. It is now clear that asymptomatic individuals can spread this infection. With staff traveling between their homes and the facilities, and newly arrested individuals brought in as others are released, containment of the virus is not possible. Prisons and jails are becoming the epicenter of COVID-19 transmission in the U.S. I can also certify that incarcerated individuals have a higher prevalence of chronic medical conditions that place them at high risk of developing severe coronavirus disease and potentially dying from this infection. Some of these medical conditions include HIV/AIDS, uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and other conditions.
Like other viral pathogens, SARS-CoV-2 is closely dependent on the complexity of human behavior and human interactions. There are many documented outbreaks of respiratory pathogens in jails and prisons in many countries. Custodial institutions have been the epicenter of outbreaks of infections amongst prisoners amplifying infections at rates far exceeding those in non-incarcerated communities. Highly transmissible viral infections such as measles, mumps, and the novel coronavirus disseminates rapidly among inmates and staff and potentially into the larger community. Overcrowding, insufficient sanitation, poor ventilation, and inadequate healthcare in prisons contribute to enabling these institutions as breeding grounds of infectious disease outbreaks. Detention and incarceration involves large groups of people living in cohorts in confined spaces creating many challenges for curbing the spread of COVID-19. The number of single rooms in jails or prisons are insufficient to adhere to the recommended isolation and quarantine guidelines and limits the ability to implement stringent infection prevention practices.
The SARS-CoV-2 ability to survive for prolonged periods on highly prevalent materials in custodial settings including non-porous surfaces and metallic surfaces complicates disinfection
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 39
practices. It is exceedingly difficult to comply with established infection prevention protocols recommending repeated disinfection and decontamination of all surfaces in jails and prisons resulting from the large number of inmates and complex human patterns of interactions between inmates and with the staff. A recent natural experiment inside a cruise ship demonstrated the rapid spread of the SARS-CoV-2 among large crowds inside a closed environment. A total of 696 cumulative cases of COVID-19 and 9 deaths occurred among the 3711 passengers inside the Princess Diamond Cruise berthed at the port of Yokohama, Japan from February 03 to March 1, 2020. The most recent estimates demonstrate that the basic reproduction number of the SARSCoV-2 is higher than previously estimated (R0= 5.6) and higher than the influenza virus A/H1N1 that caused the 1918-1919 pandemic. In contrast to influenza viruses, transmission of this coronavirus occurs by those with undetected infection having mild symptoms or asymptomatic infection in up to 20% of cases. Thus, transmission of this viral pathogen in closed spaces with a large presence of individuals increases the frequency of exposure and infection. Without complete social distancing in imprisonment settings, our ability to reduce the transmission dynamics to achieve a R0 less than one is limited.
The current outbreak of the novel coronavirus (SARS-Co-2) in different county jails and prisons in the U.S. highlights the ease of transmission of COVID-19 behind walls of jails and prisons. There is sufficient experience with this pandemic demonstrating that congested living conditions facilitate the spread of this infection. Jails and prisons are epicenters for infectious diseases because of the unavoidable close contact in often overcrowded, poorly ventilated, and unsanitary conditions. On April 14 the Bureau of Federal Prisons reported 446 cases among inmates and 248 cases among employees in 42 facilities and 11 Residential Reentry Centers (RRCs). However, by April 19, there were 495 cases among inmates, 309 cases among staff, and 22 deaths distributed in 45 facilities and 19 RRCs. There are at least 1,300 confirmed cases of COVID-19 tied to prisons and jails with at least 34 deaths when combining prisons and jails nationwide as per different reports. The revolving door of jails have fueled an increasing number of documented outbreaks in custodial institutions.
It is a major challenge for security staff to practice hospital-level infection control measures to protect them from becoming infected with the novel coronavirus. In a hospital or nursing home, staff may move up and down a single hallway over their shift, and they may interact with one patient at a time. In detention settings, officers move great distances, are asked to shout or yell commands to large numbers of people, routinely apply handcuffs and operate heavy doors/gates, operate large correctional keys and are trained in the use of force. These basic duties cause the personal protective equipment they are given to quickly break and become useless, and even when in good working order, may impede their ability talk and be understood, in the case of masks. For officers working in or around patients at risk or with symptoms, there may be an effort to have them wear protective gowns, as one would in any other setting with similar clinical risks. These gowns cover their radios, cut down tools and other equipment located on their belts and in my experience working with correctional staff, are basically impossible to use as a correctional officer.
An additional concern for transmission in carceral settings is the fact that COVID-19 may be potentially transmitted through aerosolized fecal contact or contact with infected feces when using an infected toilet. This is relevant because the plume of aerosolized fecal material that occurs when a toilet is flushed is not addressable by closing the lid of ICE detainee toilets, which
6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 39
lack a lid. This mode of transmission would pose a threat to anyone sharing a cell with a person who has COVID-19 and could occur before a person becomes symptomatic. This mode of transmission could also extend beyond cellmates, especially in circumstances where common bathrooms exist or where open communication between cells exists.
D) Situational analysis of the State of Colorado and Weld County
The State of Colorado has 10,447 confirmed cases of COVID-19 with 486 deaths. After Denver County and Arapahoe County, Weld County is the third county with the highest number of cases (1353) and the third with the highest number of deaths (84).
E) Weld County Jail
Informational Sources related to the Weld County Jail.
In preparing the portion of this declaration related to conditions of the Weld County Jail, I have reviewed all of Plaintiffs’ declarations in this case, as well as Sheriff Reams’ declaration and the declarations attached to Defendant’s Supplemental Response [ECF 39]. I also performed two jail inspections that lasted approximately three hours each, once on April 10 and once on April 24. Between those two inspections, I spoke with 13 incarcerated persons about conditions in the jail and I spoke with several correctional staff and medical staff. I found the Weld County correctional staff to be forthright and welcoming, and they were open to questions and gave me ample opportunity to speak openly with inmates who chose to converse with me. Likewise, I found the inmates with whom I spoke to be open and forthright, and their accounts were largely consistent with one another of the relevant conditions in the jail related to COVID-19.
April 10 Inspection
I had the opportunity to tour the Weld County Jail and interview some members of the medical staff and inmates on April 10.
As of April 10, Weld County staff reported to me that Weld County Jail had 14 COVID-19 cases, including 6 with positive tests and 8 presumptive cases. On April 10, they had isolated these 13 people in Unit 11 (Medical Isolation Unit). At least one of the inmates with COVID housed in the jail was receiving supplemental oxygen. A fifteenth person was COVID-19 positive at the jail, but so sick as to need hospital transfer. I learned from staff and through an inperson interview that, in mid-March, that Mr. Anthony Griego was the 14th case that was transferred to a local hospital due to the severity of his illness. He then returned to the jail but was then transferred back to the hospital on April 23 or 24 because of worsening symptoms.
Since the April 10 tour, I have learned that another Weld County inmate, Charles Peterson, was reportedly released from the Weld County Jail very sick Monday March 30. According to his death certificate, Mr. Peterson was 78 years old and, thus, high risk for serious illness or death under CDC guidelines. His death certificate also indicates congestive heart failure and diabetes mellitus as underlying conditions, both of which would put Mr. Peterson in a high risk category even absent his advanced age. He had reportedly been in the jail since March 11. Upon his release, he was reportedly taken almost immediately to the hospital. He died there two days later on April 1, 2020. His death certificate lists “COVID-19 infection” as a cause of death, along with acute respiratory failure and viral pneumonia, which are commonly caused by COVID-19 infection.
7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 39
Based on my conversations with staff and inmates on April 10, as well as inmate accounts conveyed in declarations filed in this case, it appears that before April 7 or April 8, Weld County Jail was not adhering to CDC guidance recommendations in a meaningful manner.
Mr. Peterson and Mr. Griego were likely what has been defined as ‘superpreaders’ of the infection. Theywere reportedly sick and kept in general population without social distancing, and they likely acted as the epicenter of the outbreak in the Weld County Jail. Because of age and underlying illness, they both developed severe disease.
There were two jail units under quarantine.
During my inspection, I observed and received information from correctional officers and inmates that Weld County Jail was implementing some mitigating interventions according to CDC guidelines including reducing the jail population and spreading inmates out to decrease the numbers within cells; staggering pod time and limiting the number of people on the pod at any given time; providing inmates with masks, isolating sick inmates; performing limited testing of sick inmates; making cleaning supplies more readily available, and providing some education regarding COVID-19 to inmates. I saw evidence of these changes, but noted several substantial deficiencies which remained in the April 24 inspection, and which I describe further below.
April 24 Inspection
During the first inspection, there were 13 inmates in the medical unit with a combination of probable and confirmed COVID-19 cases. After today’s inspection, there were only 7 COVID19 cases in the male medical unit. I observed that four of them were receiving supplemental oxygen and several of them were bunked two to a cell. There are currently no units on quarantine.
In different units, particularly in the B unit and in one of the transition units, I observed that individuals with high-risk comorbidities were housed in cells with between one and three other cellmates where social distancing is not possible. I did not see evidence that high risk individuals were being identified for single-celled housing or increased social distancing. The high risk individuals I interviewed were housed and treated like the other inmates.
This was a bit confusing given that in most of the units I visited, there were many empty cells that remained unused, while the occupied cells held 2 to 4 people.
I learned that some individuals that were admitted to the medical isolation unit (Unit 11) stayed less than the recommended quarantine period as per CDC guidelines, and were released from medical isolation in around a week’s time. They were then placed in cells with other inmates who had not been in quarantine.
I also spoke to several inmates who had experienced symptoms consistent with COVID-19, including cough or fever. These inmates had not been tested for COVID-19 and remained housed with other cell mates with whom they could not practice social distancing.
I saw no practices to address the likelihood of asymptomatic inmates. I saw no practices that reflected immediate isolation and testing of individuals who had one or more mild symptoms of COVID-19. Inmates consistently reported that fever and cough resulted in the provision of Tylenol, rather than COVID-19 screening, preventative isolation, and testing.
8

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 39
All inmates, except those in medical isolation, reported that they rarely if ever have their temperature checked and they are not asked by staff about symptoms of COVID-19.
Most inmates reported that cleaning is left entirely to inmates and is voluntary; that shared toilets and sinks are often not cleaned between uses, that staff do not clean nor do they mandate that inmates clean between uses.
Most inmates are housed in dry cells, locked down 22 ½ hours a day without access to supplies to clean their hands unless they are let out of their cell to use the common bathroom.
While all inmates had a disposable mask, they also all reported that they had only had two masks in the last 14 days. As a result, they had the to wear one disposable mask for between 10-12 days before they got a new one.
One major concern observed today is that Unit A, which during the initial inspection was a quarantined unit - where it is likely the place where COVID-19 outbreak initiated - is now used as an intake unit. Inmates that were housed in unit A were transferred a few days ago to units B and C. Without testing those inmates in unit A prior to their transfer for the presence of asymptomatic coronavirus infection, they could introduce the infection to these two other units. In fact, this is likely given the fact that asymptomatic infection may be responsible for 44% of coronavirus transmission.
OPINION
The leadership and the staff at the Weld County Jail have instituted a substantial number of interventions to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 and improve the safety of the inmate population. Additionally, I would like to note that the Deputy Officers and other staff who participated during these two inspections were extremely collaborative during the two inspections conducted at Weld County Jail (April 10 and April 24). It is also my opinion that there is the willingness and the openness to listen to potential recommendations that may strengthen existing efforts to improve the safety of the inmates and the staff.
As recent evidence indicates from other jails in other States and more recently from Sterling prison in Colorado, the presence of even a small outbreak of cases of COVID-19 only indicates the tip of the iceberg of a larger number of undetected cases in those with no symptoms or mild symptoms, which constitutes approximately 80% of cases. In Sterling Correctional Facility, where the Department of Corrections performed prevalence testing after only a few confirmed cases of COVID-19 and a minimal number of symptomatic inmates, 138 out of 255 inmates tested positive for the virus. There is evidence that during an outbreak 20% or more persons have no symptoms and temperature screens are not helpful. This 20% may be responsible for 44% of the transmission of the novel coronavirus. As Mr. Dean Williams, Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections stated today in a new release: “Given the insidious nature of this virus we had suspected that despite seeing a relatively low number of inmates with symptoms, the number of positives was potentially much higher”
It is my opinion that when reviewing Weld County Jail data received April 24, it is unclear why despite having only 9 individuals in isolation with 8 COVID-19 positive tests, there are no inmates in quarantine. Since Weld County Jail had 14 COVID-19 cases combining confirmed and probable cases only two weeks ago, at a time when some meaningful social distancing had only just begun, it is likely that if testing to
9

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 39
confirm evidence of infection is done, it may probably reveal many asymptomatically infected inmates potentially spreading the infection. This scenario is what is currently seen at Sterling Prison in Colorado and in Ohio. It is my opinion that without substantial testing of previously quarantined individuals and increased single-celling, that the virus is likely to continue to spread in the jail, putting high risk inmates at a substantial risk of serious illness or death.
After conducting these two inspections of the Weld County Jail, where I had the opportunity to speak with inmates and staff and observed the dynamics of the different units, it is my opinion that additional interventions are necessary to protect inmate, staff and ultimately community safety. Herein, is a summary of these recommendations:
• This unprecedented pandemic calls for unprecedented measures in every setting but particularly in congregate settings. o No one inside Weld County Jail or outside living in the larger community is safe until there is interruption of coronavirus transmission.
• Implementing CDC protocols to mitigate Covid-19 transmission in Weld County Jail is not sufficient unless social distancing is meaningfully implemented. o Reducing the inmate population to allow for social distancing is the cornerstone of reducing the impact of this highly transmissible viral pathogen. o Social distancing requires inmates maintaining a distance of at least six feet from each other, disinfection of key areas (telephones and toilets), mask use, and regular handwashing must be meticulously followed. These protocols are necessary to prevent spread of COVID-19 among otherwise healthy people. However, these protocols are imperative for high-risk individuals. Without these protocols, high-risk individuals face a substantial risk of serios illness or death from the virus. o Reduction of population should occur to allow the maximum amount of social distancing possible, with a guarantee of social distancing for high risk inmates, discussed further below.
• Prevention of exposure to the novel coronavirus o Institute directives for all inmates in all units to use disinfectant and clean telephones after each use. o Institute directives for all inmates in all units to use disinfectant prior to the use and after using toilettes. o Enforce guidance on bed positions: ▪ For single beds positioned next to each other (side-to side): At least 6 feet apart and inmate’s laying position is head to toe ▪ For bunkbeds that are positioned next to each other or across from one another: Position beds at least 6 feet apart. Ensure the inmate’s laying position is head to toe on each separate bunk bed, so positioning allows for the least transmission risk as possible. This includes laying position that is head to toe with adjacent bunks. o Enforce social distancing practices of all inmates in all units during med-line or meal-line o Sick inmates should not be required to clean their own cell and no inmate should clean up after other inmates.
10

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 39
o Professional janitorial services should be brought in to disinfect the male medical isolation unit or any unit, which may become quarantined in the near future.
o Professional janitorial services or trained staff should thoroughly clean each unit every night.
• Inmates at high-risk of severe disease and dying from COVID-19 infection need to be identified, and then either released or provided 24-7 social distancing. o Medically vulnerable inmates are at a substantial risk of contracting, spreading and becoming seriously ill or dying from COVID-19 in any carceral setting, particularly in a place like Weld County Jail that is experiencing an outbreak. To the greatest extent possible, medically vulnerable inmates should be released. o To the extent that inmates at risk of severe disease or death cannot be released, medically vulnerable individuals should be housed in single-person cells to mitigate the risk of serious illness or death to this population. For example, from today’s inspection, I would consider that Mr. Richard Barnum and Mr. Jesus Martinez should not be placed in a cell other 3 inmates. Mr. Barnum has chronic kidney disease and chronic liver disease (see above table for medically vulnerable populations). Mr. Jesus Martinez has a history of asthma and hypertension, which places him at-risk of severe disease and should therefore be housed preferentially in a solo cell. o During the intake, it is imperative to enhance efforts to identify inmates at highrisk of COVID-19 complications to guide enforcement of social distancing interventions such as placement in a single cell. o All current inmates should be immediately screened to determine if they meet the criteria for high risk noted in Table 1.
• Personal Protective Equipment o There is a need to replace with more regularity disposable surgical masks that inmates are currently wearing. While there are no specific guidelines stating how long a surgical mask should be replaced in carceral settings, I do recommend to exchange masks at least every third day but definitely no longer than five days since it will lose its barrier function. The initial set of masks were only replaced approximately 14 days after. o The use of washable cloth masks may be an alternative and a cost-effective alternative.
• Expanding testing capabilities for COVID-19 at Weld County Jail to ensure interruption of transmission and to guide isolation and quarantine interventions. o There is increasing evidence and recent publications to suggest that expanding testing capabilities will improve isolation and quarantine strategies in congregate settings. o Given the rapid spread of COVID-19 across the U.S. and the globe based on the clear evidence of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 transmission from asymptomatic persons broadened SARS-CoV-2 testing to include asymptomatic persons in prioritized settings such as jails.
11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 39
o There is evidence from jails and prisons in other settings that despite having excellent infection control practices, suggested social distancing interventions, keeping the door open for new introductions may only flatten the epidemiologic curve of cases. However, it will not definitively halt the occurrence of new cases in settings where there is ongoing sustained community transmission as it has occurred in the larger community in Weld County.
o As shown in custodial settings in Ohio, the rate of asymptomatic and symptomatic infection in an enclosed jail environment could reach up to 70% (with more than 20% asymptomatic infection).A similar ration of symptomatic to asymptomatic ratio was identified and reported today at Sterling Prison in Colorado.
o Priorities for testing: ▪ Test newly admitted for novel coronavirus infection even if asymptomatic to reduce the risk of new introductions into Weld County Jail. There is no other way to effective screen asymptomatic people at intake. ▪ Any inmate at Weld County Jail with one or more symptoms consistent with COVID-19 should undergo a clinical assessment including testing for the presence of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharynx. ▪ All inmates recently released from Unit A should be tested. For those who are positive, any of their new cellmates should be tested. During an outbreak, testing asymptomatic exposed will reduce the chances of spread to other units. For example, there may be individuals that were transferred from Unit A where the outbreak may have initiated and who completed an appropriate quarantine period in the A unit. However, they may have asymptomatic infection despite having normal temperature and normal screening for symptoms and now that they were transferred to unit B may actually be silent spreaders. Within unit B, it his individual with asymptomatic infection is housed in a cell with an at-risk individual, this practice may cause this cellmate to become severely ill and in turn, disseminate the infection to others. Those with severe symptoms have high concentrations of coronavirus in their respiratory secretions. ▪ Ideally, all Weld County inmates and staff should be tested, but prevalence testing is a reasonable alternative.
o Intake Unit. At intake, there is no way to protect high risk individuals from potential exposure other than a single-cell environment. Under no circumstances should high-risk individuals be placed in a cell with any other person prior to the 14 day quarantine.
• Adhering to CDC quarantine and isolation guidelines. o A14-day quarantine should be used for: a) asymptomatic individuals exposed to a case; and, b) new arrestees and bookings (unless specific testing for coronavirus is performed as suggested above). o Medical isolation practices should be implemented for those with symptoms consistent with COVID-19 regardless of having any underlying comorbidity to develop severe disease.
12

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 39
o Inmate with a positive COVID-19 test should be placed in isolation (as should persons with symptoms consistent with COVID-19 pending test results). Those with a negative test should be placed in quarantine with close clinical monitoring and if indicated repeat testing.
o Transferring those exposed to a case may spread further this infection, if testing for COVID-19 is not conducted among asymptomatic individuals, even if the quarantine period was completed according to guidelines. Screening for symptoms and temperature is insufficient to stop the spread of this highly transmissible virus given the high risk of transmitting the infection by asymptomatic individuals.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the statements above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Date: April 24, 2020
______________________________ Carlos Franco-Paredes, MD, MPH, DTMH (Gorgas) Associate Professor of Medicine
Scientific References: 1. Walmsley R. World Prison Population List. 11th ed. London, UK: International Centre for Prison Studies, Kings College; 2016. Available at: https://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/world_prison_popu lation_list_11th_edition_0.pdf. Accessed: April 12, 2020. 2. Herivel T, Wright P. Prison profiteers. Who makes money from mass incarceration? The New Press, New York, NY, U.S.A. 2007New York Lawyers for the Public Interest. Detained and denied healthcare access in immigration detention. 3. Kinner SA, Young JT. Understanding and improving the health of people who experience incarceration: An overview and synthesis. Epidemiol Rev 2018; 40: 4-11. 4. Prison Policy Initiative. Available at: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html. Accessed: April 11, 2020. 5. Harding DJ, Morenoff JD, Nguyen AP, Bushway SD, Binswanger IA. A natural experiment study of the effects of imprisonment on violence in the community. Nat Hum Behav 2019; 3(7): 671-77. 6. Harding DJ. Do prisons makes us safer. Sci Am 2019. Available at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-prisons-make-us-safer/. Accessed: April 12, 2020.
13

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 39
7. Case A, Deaton A. Rising morbidity and mortality in midlife among white non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st century. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2015; 112 (49): 15078-83.
8. Berger ZD, Goldberg DS. Caught in the web – U.S. immigration and compound disadvantage. N Engl J Med 2019; 381(11): 993-995Harding DJ, Morenoff JD, Nguyen AP, Bushway SD. Short-and long-term effect of imprisonment on future felony convictions and prison admissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2017; 114 (42): 11103-11108.
9. Harding DJ, Morenoff JD, Herbert CW. Home is hard to find: neighborhood, institutions and the residential trajectories of returning prisoners. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 2013; 647(1): 214-236.
10. CDC-Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-patients.html). Accessed: April 12, 2020.
11. Johns Hopkins University. Coronavirus Resource Center Available at: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html. Accessed: April 12, 2020.
12. The New York Times. Coronavirus in the U.S.: Latest map and case count – The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-uscases.html?referringSource=articleShare. Accessed: April 12, 2020.
13. Fauci AS. Infectious diseases: considerations for the 21st century. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 32: 675-85.
14. Finnie TJR, Copley VR, Hall IM, Leach S. An analysis of influenza outbreaks in institutions and enclosed societies. Epidemiol Infect 2014; 14: 107-113.
15. Chao W-C, Liu P-Y, Wu C-L. Control of an H1N1 outbreak in a correctional facility in central Taiwan. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 2017; 50: 175-182.
16. Dolan K, Wirtz AL, Moazen B, Ndeffo-Mbah M, Galvani A, Kinner SA, Courtney R, McKee M, Amon JJ, Maher L, Hellard M, Beyrer C, Altice FL. Global burden of HIV, viral hepatitis, and tuberculosis in prisoners and detainees. Lancet 2016; 388 (10049): 1089-1102.
17. Prisons and custodial settings are part of a comprehensive response to COVID-19. Lancet Public Health 2020; 5(4): e188-e189.
18. CDC. Interim guidance on management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in correctional and detention facilities. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/community/correction-detention/guidance-correctional-detention.html. Accessed: April 12, 2020.
19. Van Doremalen N, Bushmaker T, Morris DH, Holbrook MG, Gamble A, Williamson BN, Tamin A, Harcourt JL, Thornburg NJ, Gerber SI, Lloyd-Smith JO, de Wit E, Munster VJ. Aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 as compared with SARSCoV-1. N Engl J Med 2020; Mar 17. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2004973.
20. Mizumoto K, Chowell G. Transmission potential of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) onboard the diamond Princess Cruises Ship, 2020. Infect Dis Modelling 2020; 5: 264270.
21. Mizumoto K, Kagaya K, Zarebski A, Chowell G. Estimating the asymptomatic proportion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases on board the diamond Princess cruise ship, Yokohama, Japan, 2020. Euro Surveill 2020; 25 (10). doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.10.2000180.
14

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 39
22. Sanche S, Lin YT, Xu C, Romero-Severson E, Hengartner N, Ke R. High contagiousness and rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Jul https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2607.200282.
23. Swerdlow DL, Finelli L. Preparation for possible sustained transmission of 2019 Novel Coronavirus. Lessons from previous pandemics. JAMA 2020; 323(12): 1129-30.
24. Patrozou E, Mermel LA. Does influenza transmission occur from asymptomatic infection or prior to symptom onset? Public Health Rep 2009; 124: 193-96.
25. Thompson R. Pandemic potential of 2019-nCoV.Lancet Infect Dis 2020; 20 March 20; doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099 (20)30068-2.
26. Li R, Pei S, Chen B, Song , Zhang T, Shaman J. Substantial undocumented infection facilitates the rapid dissemination of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV2). Science 10.1126/scienceabb3221 (2020).
27. Crux. Brazil’s Church leaders warn about a threat to prisoners posed by COVID19.https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-americas/2020/04/brazils-church-leaders-warnabout-threat-to-prisoners-posed-by-covid-19/. April 4, 2020. Accessed: April 12, 2020.
28. India Today. Coronavirus: India’s packed prisons raise COVID-19 alarm. https://www.indiatoday.in/mail-today/story/india-packed-prisons-raise-coronavirusalarm-1661136-2020-03-30. March 30, 2020. Accessed: April 12, 2020.
29. World Prisons Brief. COVID-19 in prisons: a major public health risk. https://www.prisonstudies.org/news/covid-19-prisons-%E2%80%93-major-public-healthrisk. Accessed: April 12, 2020.
30. Federal Bureau of Prisons. Available at: https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/. Accessed: April 12, 2020.
31. New York Times. Chicago’s jail is top U.S. hot spot as virus spreads behind bars. April 8, 2020. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/us/coronavirus-cook-countyjail-chicago.html. Accessed: April 12, 2020.
32. Cabral J, Cuevas AG. Health inequities among Latinos/Hispanics: documentation status as a determinant of health. J Racial Ethnic Health Disp 2020; Feb 5. doi: 10.1007/s40615-020-00710-0.
33. Gransky M, Keller A, Venters H. Death rates among detained immigrants in the United States. In J Environ Res Public health 2015; 12, 14414-14419.
34. Farmer PE, Nizeye B, Stulac S, Keshavjee S. Structural violence and clinical medicine. PLoS Med 2006; 3(10); e449.
35. Hotez PJ. Neglected infections of poverty in the United States of America. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2008; 2(6): e256.
36. Franco-Paredes C, Santos-Preciado JI. Freedom, justice, and the Neglected Tropical Diseases. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2011; 8: e1235.
37. The Guardian. Data form US south shows African Americans hit hardest by COVID-19. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/08/black-americans-coronavirus-us-southdata. Accessed: April 12, 2020.
38. MMWR. COVID-19 in a Long-Term Care Facility — King County, Washington, February 27–March 9, 2020; March 27, 2020: 69(12): 339-342.
39. The United States Department of Justice. Aging in Prison. National Institute of Corrections. Available at: https://nicic.gov/aging-prison. Accessed: April 24, 2020.
15

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 39
40. Williams BA, Stern MF, Mellow j, Safer M, Greifinger RB. Aging in correctional custoy: setting a policy agenda for older prisoner health care. Am J Public Health 2012; 102(8): 1475-1481.
41. Ghandi RT, Lynch JB, Del Rio C. Mild or moderate Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2020; April 24. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMcp2009249.
42. Gandhi M, Yokoe DS, Havlir DV. Asymptomatic transmission, the Achilles’ Heel of current strategies to control Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2020. April 24. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMe2009758.
43. Arons MM, Hatfield KM, Reddy SC, et al. Presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections and transmission in a skilled nursing facility. N Engl J Med 2020. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2008457.
44. Sharsftein JM, Becker SJ, Mello MM. Diagnostic testing for the novel coronavirus. JAMA 2020; 323(15): 1437-38.
45. He X, Lau EHY, Wu P, et al. Temporal dynamics in viral shedding and transmissibility of COVID-19. Nature Med 2020; DOI: 10.1038/s41591-020-0869-5.
46. Chen Y, Chen L, Deng Q, et al. The presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in feces of COVID19 patients. J Med Virol. 2020 Apr 3. doi: 10.1002/jmv.25825.
47. Colorado Official State Web Portal. Available at: https://covid19.colorado.gov/outbreakdata. Accessed: April 24, 2020.
1
EXHIBIT A.
PERSONAL INFORMATION Carlos Franco-Paredes, M.D., M.P.H.
CURRENT PROFESSIONAL POSITION AND ACTIVITIES: • Associate Professor of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus and Infectious Diseases (July 16

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 39

2018 - ongoing). • Fellowship Program Director, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Colorado
Denver School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus (March 2019- ongoing).

EDUCATION 1989 -1995 1996-1999

M.D. - La Salle University School of Medicine, Mexico City, Mexico Internship and Residency in Internal Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine Affiliated Hospitals, Atlanta, GA

1999-2002 1999-2002
1999 - 2002 2001-2002 2006

Fellowship in Infectious Diseases, Emory University School of Medicine Affiliated Hospitals, Atlanta, GA Fellow in AIDS International Training and Research Program, NIH Fogarty Institute, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA
Masters Degree in Public Health (M.P.H.) Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, Global Health Track Chief Medical Resident, Grady Memorial Hospital, Emory University
School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA Diploma Course in Tropical Medicine, Gorgas. University of Alabama, Birmingham and Universidad Cayetano Heredia, Lima Peru

CERTIFICATIONS
1999-Present Diplomat in Internal Medicine American Board of Internal Medicine (Recertification 11/2010-11/2020)
2001-present Diplomat in Infectious Diseases, American Board of Internal Medicine, Infectious Diseases Subspecialty (Recertification 04/2011-04/2021)
2005-present Travel Medicine Certification by the International Society of Travel Medicine
2007-present Tropical Medicine Certification by the American Society of Tropical Medicine – Diploma in Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (DTMH - Gorgas)

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY: • 2002 - 2004 - Advisor to the Director of the National Center for Child and Adolescent Health and of the National Immunization Council (NIP), Ministry of Health Mexico; my activities included critical review of current national health plans on vaccination, infectious diseases, soil-transmitted helminthic control programs; meningococcal disease outbreaks in the jail system, an outbreak of imported measles in 2003-2004 and bioterrorism and influenza pandemic preparedness. I represented the NIP at meetings of the Global Health Security Action Group preparation of National preparedness and response plans for Mexico
• 2005 – 2011- Co-Director Travel Well Clinic, Emory University
17

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 39
Emory Midtown Hospital • 2004- 8/2009 -Assistant Professor of Medicine
Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta GA • 3/2008-10/2009 Consultant WHO, HQ, Geneva, Influenza Vaccine • 9/2009- 3/2011 Associate Professor of Medicine Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta GA • 1/2007 – 3/2011 Assistant Professor of Public Health Hubert Department of Global Health Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta GA • 4/2011 –5/2013 - Associate Professor of Public Health in Global Health Hubert Department of Global Health Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta GA • 2010 - WHO HQ Consultant for a 4-month-period on the Deployment of H1N1 influenza vaccine in the African Region, Jan to March 2010, Switzerland Geneva, WHO HQ 2010 sponsored by John Snow Inc. USAID, Washington, D.C. • 2014-2015 - Consultant International Association of Immunization Managers, Regional Meeting of the Middle Eastern and North African Countries and Sub Saharan Africa, held in Durban South Africa, Sept 2014; and as rapporteur of the Inaugural Conference, 3-4 March 2015, Istanbul, Turkey. • 3/2011- 5/2017 - Phoebe Physician Group –Infectious Diseases Clinician Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Albany, GA. • 5/2015 - 9/2015 - Consultant Surveillance of Enteric Fever in Asia (Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Nepal, India) March 2015-October 2015. • June 19, 2017-June 31, 2018–Visiting Associate Professor of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Colorado Denver, Anschutz Medical Campus • June 2004- present - Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics, Division of Clinical Research, Hospital Infantil de México, Federico Gómez, México City, México. Investigador Nacional Nivel II, Sistema Nacional de Investigadores (12/2019); SNI III Sistema Nacional de Investigadores (1/2020-); Investigador Clínico Nivel E, Sistema Nacional de Hospitales
HONORS AND AWARDS
1995 Top Graduating Student, La Salle School of Medicine 1997 Award for Academic Excellence in Internal Medicine, EUSM
1999 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) House staff Officer, EUSM
2002 Pillar of Excellence Award. Fulton County Department of Health and Wellness Communicable Disease Prevention Branch, Atlanta GA
2002 Emory University Humanitarian Award for extraordinary service in Leadership Betterment of the Human Condition the Emory University Rollins School of Public Health
18

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 39

2002 Winner of the Essay Contest on the Health of Developing Countries:

Causes and Effects in Relation to Economics or Law, sponsored by the Center for International Development at Harvard University and the World Health Organization Commission on Macroeconomics Health with the essay "Infectious Diseases, Non-zero Sum Thinking and the Developing World”

2002

“James W. Alley” Award for Outstanding Service to Disadvantaged Populations, Rollins School of Public Health of Emory University May 2002. Received during Commencement Ceremony Graduation to obtain the Degree of Masters in Public Health

2006 Golden Apple Award for Excellence in Teaching, Emory University, SOM

2006 Best Conference Award Conference, “Juha Kokko” Best Conference Department of Medicine, EUSM

2007 “Jack Shulman” Award Infectious Disease fellowship, Excellence in Teaching Award, Division of Infectious Diseases, EUSM

2007 Emerging Threats in Public Health: Pandemic Influenza CD-ROM, APHA’s Public Health Education and Health Promotion Section, Annual Public Health Materials Contest award

2009

National Center for Preparedness, Detection, and Control of Infectious Diseases. Honor Award Certificate for an exemplary partnership in clinical and epidemiologic monitoring of illness related to international travel. NCPDCID Recognition Awards Ceremony, April 2009. CDC, Atlanta, GA

2012 The ISTM Awards Committee, directed by Prof. Herbert DuPont, selected the article "Rethinking typhoid fever vaccines" in the Journal of Travel Medicine (Best Review Article)

2012 Best Clinical Teacher. Albany Family Medicine Residency Program

2018 Outstanding Educator Award – Infectious Diseases Fellowship, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Center, Aurora Colorado

EDITORSHIP AND EDITORIAL BOARDS 2007-Present Deputy/Associate Editor PLoS Neglected Tropical Disease
Public Library of Science 2017-2018 Deputy Editor, Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials
BMC
19

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 39
2007-2019 Core Faculty International AIDS Society-USA -Travel and Tropical Medicine/HIV/AIDS
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEES 2018- Member of the Examination Committee of the International Society of Travel Medicine.
Developing Examination Questions and Proctoring the Certificate in Traveler’s Health Examination Proctor Certificate of Traveler’s Health Examination (CTH) as part of the International Society of Travel Medicine– 12th Asia-Pacific Travel Health Conference, Thailand 21-24 March 2019 Proctor Certificate of Traveler’s Health Examination (CTH), Atlanta, GA, September, 2019
PUBLICATIONS
BOOKS Franco-Paredes C, Santos-Preciado JI. Neglected Tropical Diseases in Latin America and the Caribbean, Springer-Verlag, 2015. ISBN-13: 978-3709114216 ISBN-10: 3709114217
Franco-Paredes C. Core Concepts in Clinical Infectious Diseases, Academic Press, Elsevier, March 2016. ISBN: 978-0-12-804423-0
RESEARCH ORIGINAL ARTICLES (clinical, basic science, other) in refereed journals: 1. Del Rio C, Franco-Paredes C, Duffus W, Barragan M, Hicks G. Routinely Recommending HIV Testing at a Large Urban Urgent-Care Clinic – Atlanta, GA. MMWR Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep 2001; 50:538-541. 2. Del Rio C, Barragán M, Franco-Paredes C. Pneumocystis carinii Pneumonia. N Engl J Med 2004; 351:1262-1263. 3. Barragan M, Hicks G, Williams M, Franco-Paredes C, Duffus W, Del Rio C. Health Literacy is Associated with HIV Test Acceptance. J Gen Intern Med 2005; 20:422-425. 4. Rodriguez-Morales A, Arria M, Rojas-Mirabal J, Borges E, Benitez J, Herrera M, Villalobos C, Maldonado A, Rubio N, Franco-Paredes C. Lepidopterism Due to the Exposure of the Moth Hylesia metabus in Northeastern Venezuela. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2005; 73:991-993. 5. Rodriguez-Morales A, Sánchez E, Arria M, Vargas M, Piccolo C, Colina R, Franco-Paredes C. White Blood Cell Counts in Plasmodium vivax. J Infect Dis 2005; 192:1675-1676. 6. Franco-Paredes C, Nicolls D, Dismukes R, Kozarsky P. Persistent Tropical Infectious Diseases among Sudanese Refugees Living in the US. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2005; 73: 1. 7. Osorio-Pinzon J, Moncada L, Franco-Paredes C. Role of Ivermectin in the Treatment of Severe Orbital Myiasis Due to Cochliomyia hominivorax. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 3: e57-9. 8. Rodriguez-Morales A, Franco-Paredes C. Impact of Plasmodium vivax Malaria during Pregnancy in Northeastern Venezuela. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2006; 74:273-277. 9. Rodriguez-Morales A, Nestor P, Arria M, Franco-Paredes C. Impact of Imported Malaria on the Burden of Malaria in Northeastern Venezuela. J Travel Med 2006; 13:15-20.
20

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 39
10. Rodríguez-Morales A, Sánchez E, Vargas M, Piccolo C, Colina R, Arria M, Franco-Paredes C. Is anemia in Plasmodium vivax More Severe and More Frequent than in Plasmodium falciparum? Am J Med 2006; 119:e9-10. 11. Hicks G, Barragan M, Franco-Paredes C, Williams MV, del Rio C. Health Literacy is a Predictor of HIV Knowledge. Fam Med J 2006; 10:717-723. 12. Cardenas R, Sandoval C, Rodriguez-Morales A, Franco-Paredes C. Impact of Climate Variability in the Occurrence of Leishmaniasis in Northeastern Colombia. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2006; 75:273-7. 13. Franco-Paredes C, Nicolls D, Dismukes R, Wilson M, Jones D, Workowski K, Kozarsky P. Persistent and Untreated Tropical Infectious Diseases among Sudanese Refugees in the US. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2007; 77:633-635. 14. Rodríguez-Morales AJ, Sanchez E, Arria M, Vargas M, Piccolo C, Colina R, FrancoParedes C. Hemoglobin and haematocrit: The Threefold Conversion is also Non Valid for Assessing Anaemia in Plasmodium vivax Malaria-endemic Settings. Malaria J 2007; 6:166. 15. Franco-Paredes C, Jones D, Rodriguez-Morales AJ, Santos-Preciado JI. Improving the Health of Neglected Populations in Latin America. BMC Public Health 2007; 7. 16. Kelly C, Hernández I, Franco-Paredes C, Del Rio C. The Clinical and Epidemiologic Characteristics of Foreign-born Latinos with HIV/AIDS at an Urban HIV Clinic. AIDS Reader 2007; 17:73-88. 17. Hotez PJ, Bottazzi ME, Franco-Paredes C, Ault SK, Roses-Periago M. The Neglected Tropical Diseases of Latin America and the Caribbean: Estimated Disease Burden and Distribution and a Roadmap for Control and Elimination. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2008; 2:e300. 18. Tellez I, Barragan M, Nelson K, Del Rio C, Franco-Paredes C. Pneumocystis jiroveci (PCP) in the Inner City: A Persistent and Deadly Pathogen. Am J Med Sci 2008; 335:192-197. 19. Rodriguez-Morales AJ, Olinda, Franco-Paredes C. Cutaneous Leishmaniasis Imported from Colombia to Northcentral Venezuela: Implications for Travel Advice. Trav Med Infect Dis 2008; 6(6): 376-9. 20. Jacob J, Kozarsky P, Dismukes R, Bynoe V, Margoles L, Leonard M, Tellez I, FrancoParedes C. Five-Year Experience with Type 1 and Type 2 Reactions in Hansen’s Disease at a US Travel Clinic. Am J Trop Med Hygiene 2008; 79:452-454. 21. Delgado O, Silva S, Coraspe V, Ribas MA, Rodriguez-Morales AJ, Navarro P, FrancoParedes C. Epidemiology of Cutaneous Leishmaniasis in Children and Adolescents in Venezuela. Trop Biomed. 2008; 25(3):178-83. 22. Franco-Paredes C, Lammoglia L, Hernandez I, Santos-Preciado JI. Epidemiology and Outcomes of Bacterial Meningitis in Mexican Children: 10-Years' Experience (1993-2003). Int J Infect Dis 2008; 12:380-386. 23. Pedroza A, Huerta GJ, Garcia ML, Rojas A, Lopez I, Peñagos M, Franco-Paredes C, Deroche C, Mascareñas C. The Safety and Immunogenicity of Influenza Vaccine in Children with Asthma in Mexico. Int J Infect Dis 2009; 13(4): 469-75. 24. Museru O, Franco-Paredes C. Epidemiology and Outcomes of Hepatitis B Virus Infection among Refugees Seen at U.S. Travel Medicine Clinic: 2005-2008. Travel Med Infect Dis 2009; 7: 171-179. 25. Rodriguez-Morales AJ, Olinda M, Franco-Paredes C. Imported Cases of Malaria Admitted to Two Hospitals of Margarita Island, Venezuela: 1998-2005. Travel Med Infect Dis 2009: (1): 48-45.
21

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 39
26. Kelley CF, Checkley W, Mannino DM, Franco-Paredes C, Del Rio C, Holguin F. Trends in Hospitalizations for AIDS-associated Pneumocystis jiroveci Pneumonia in the United States (1986-2005). Chest 2009; 136(1): 190-7. 27. Carranza M, Newton O, Franco-Paredes C, Villasenor A. Clinical Outcomes of Mexican Children with Febrile Acute Upper Respiratory Infection: No Impact of Antibiotic Therapy. Int J Infect Dis 2010; 14(9): e759-63. 28. Museru O, Vargas M, Kinyua M, Alexander KT, Franco-Paredes C, Oladele A. Hepatitis B Virus Infection among Refugees Resettled in the U.S.: High Prevalence and Challenges in Access to Health Care. J Immigrant Minor Health 2010; 29. Moro P, Thompson B, Santos-Preciado JI, Weniger B, Chen R, Franco-Paredes C. Needlestick injuries in Mexico City sanitation workers. Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública/Pan American Journal of Public Health 2010; 27 (6): 467-8. 30. Barragan M, Holtz M, Franco-Paredes C, Leonard M. The Untimely Misfortune of Tuberculosis Diagnosis at time of Death. Infect Dis Clin Pract 2010; 18(6):1-7. 31. Hochberg N, Armstrong W, Wang W, Sheth A, Moro R, Montgomery S, Steuer F, Lennox J, Franco-Paredes C. High Prevalence of Persistent Parasitic Infections in Foreign-born HIVinfected Persons in the United States. PLoS Neglect Dis 2011; 5(4): e1034. 32. Larocque RC, Rao SR, Lee J, Ansdell V, Yates JA, Schwartz BS, Knouse M, Cahill J, Hagmann S, Vinetz J, Connor BA, Goad JA, Oladele A, Alvarez S, Stauffer W, Walker P, Kozarsky P, Franco-Paredes C, Dismukes R, Rosen J, Hynes NA, Jacquerioz F, McLellan S, Hale D, Sofarelli T, Schoenfeld D, Marano N, Brunette G, Jentes ES, Yanni E, Sotir MJ, Ryan ET; the Global TravEpiNet Consortium. Global TravEpiNet: A National Consortium of Clinics Providing Care to International Travelers--Analysis of Demographic Characteristics, Travel Destinations, and Pretravel Healthcare of High-Risk US International Travelers, 2009-2011. Clin Infect Dis. 2012; 54(4):455-462. 33. Espinosa-Padilla SE, Murata C, Estrada-Parra S, Santos-Argumendo L, Mascarenas C, Franco-Paredes C, Espinosa-Rosales FJ. Immunogenicity of a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine among Mexican children. Arch Med Res 2012; 34. Harris JR, Lockhart SR, Sondermeyer G, Vugia DJ, Crist MB, D'Angelo MT, Sellers B, Franco-Paredes C, Makvandi M, Smelser C, Greene J, Stanek D, Signs K, Nett RJ, Chiller T, Park BJ. Cryptococcus gattii infections in multiple states outside the US Pacific Northwest. Emerg Infect Dis. 2013; 19 (10):1620-6. 35. Franco-Paredes C. Aerobic actinomycetes that masquerade as pulmonary tuberculosis. Bol Med Hosp Infant Mex 2014; 71(1): 36-40. 36. Chastain DB, Ngando I, Bland CM, Franco-Paredes C, and Hawkins WA. Effect of the 2014 Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute urine-specific breakpoints on cefazolin susceptibility rates at a community teaching hospital. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 2017; 16(1): 43. 37. Kashef Hamadani BH, Franco-Paredes C, MCollister B, Shapiro L, Beckham JD, HenaoMartinez AF. Cryptococcosis and cryptococcal meningitis- new predictors and clinical outcomes at a United States Academic Medical Center. Mycoses 2017; doi: 10.1111/myc.12742. 38. Chastain DB, Franco-Paredes C, Wheeler SE, Olubajo B, Hawkins A. Evaluating Guideline Adherence regarding Empirical Vancomycin use in patients with neutropenic fever. Int J Infect Dis 2018; Feb 22. pii: S1201-9712(18)30052-3. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2018.02.016. PMID: 29477362
22

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 39
39. Parra-Henao G, Amioka E, Franco-Paredes C, Colborn KL, Henao-Martinez AF. Heart failure symptoms and ecological factors as predictors of Chagas disease among indigenous communities in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia. J Card Fail 2018; Mar 26. pii: S1071-9164(18)30119-2. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2018.03.007. 40. Vela Duarte D, Henao-Martinez AF, Nyberg E, Castellanos P, Franco-Paredes C, Chastain DB, Lacunar Stroke in Cryptococcal Meningitis: Clinical and Radiographic Features. J Stroke and Cerebrovascular Disease 2019; 41. Chastain DB, Henao-Martinez AF, Franco-Paredes C. A clinical pharmacist survey of prophylactic strategies used to prevent adverse events of lipid-associated formulations of amphotericin B. Infect Dis 2019; 42. Henao-Martínez AF, Chadalawada S, Villamil-Gomez WE, DeSanto K, Rassi A Jr, FrancoParedes C. Duration and determinants of Chagas latency: an etiology and risk systematic review protocol. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2019 Jul 22. doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-D-1800018.
CONSENSUS STATEMENTS
Pritchett MA, Oberg CL, Belanger A, De Cardenas J, Cheng G, Cumbo Nacheli G, FrancoParedes C, Singh J, Toth J, Zgoda M, Folch E. Society for Advanced Bronchoscopy Consensus Statement and Guidelines for bronchoscopy and airway management amid the COVID-19 pandemic. J Thorac Dis 2020; http:/dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2020.04.32
RESEARCH ORIGINAL ARTICLES AS COLLABORATOR (clinical, basic science, other) in refereed journals: 43. Benator D, Bhattacharya M, Bozeman L, Burman W, Cantazaro A, Chaisson R, Gordin F, Horsburgh CR, Horton J, Khan A, Lahart C, Metchock B, Pachucki C, Stanton L, Vernon A, Villarino ME, Wang YC, Weiner M, Weis S; Tuberculosis Trials Consortium. Rifapentine and Isoniazid Once a Week versus Rifampicin and Isoniazid twice a week for Treatment of Drug-susceptible Pulmonary Tuberculosis in HIV-Negative Patients: a Randomised Clinical Trial. Lancet 2002; 360:528-34. 44. Weiner M, Burman W, Vernon A, Benator D, Peloquin CA, Khan A, Weis S, King B, Shah N, Hodge T; Tuberculosis Trials Consortium. Low INH Concentrations and Outcome of Tuberculosis Treatment with Once-weekly INH and Rifapentine. Am J Rev Crit Care Med 2003; 167:1341-1347. 45. Jasmer RM, Bozeman L, Schwartzman K, Cave MD, Saukkonen JJ, Metchock B, Khan A, Burman WJ; Tuberculosis Trials Consortium. Recurrent Tuberculosis in the United States and Canada: Relapse or Reinfection? Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2004; 170:1360-1366. Mendelson M, Davis XM, Jensenius M, Keystone JS, von Sonnenburg F, Hale DC, Burchard GD, Field V, Vincent P, Freedman DO; GeoSentinel Surveillance Network. Health risks in travelers to South Africa: the GeoSentinel experience and implications for the 2010 FIFA World Cup. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2010; 82(6): 991-5. 46. Hagmann S, Neugebauer R, Schwartz E, Perret C, Castelli F, Barnett ED, Stauffer WM; GeoSentinel Surveillance Network. Illness in children after international travel: analysis from the GeoSentinel Surveillance Network. Pediatrics. 2010; 1 25(5): e1072-80. 47. Schlagenhauf P, Chen LH, Wilson ME, Freedman DO, Tcheng D, Schwartz E, Pandey P, Weber R, Nadal D, Berger C, von Sonnenburg F, Keystone J, Leder K; GeoSentinel
23

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 39
Surveillance Network. Sex and gender differences in travel-associated disease. Clin Infect Dis. 2010; 50 (6): 826-32. 48. Jensenius M, Davis X, von Sonnenburg F, Schwartz E, Keystone JS, Leder K, Lopéz-Véléz R, Caumes E, Cramer JP, Chen L, Parola P; GeoSentinel Surveillance Network. Multicener GeoSentinel analysis of rickettsial diseases in international travelers, 1996-2008. Emerg Infect Dis. 2009; 15(11):1791-8. 49. Chen LH, Wilson ME, Davis X, Loutan L, Schwartz E, Keystone J, Hale D, Lim PL, McCarthy A, Gkrania-Klotsas E, Schlagenhauf P; GeoSentinel Surveillance Network. Emerg Infect Dis. 2009; 15(11): 1773-82. 50. Nicolls DJ, Weld LH, Schwartz E, Reed C, von Sonnenburg F, Freedman DO, Kozarsky PE; GeoSentinel Surveillance Network. Characteristics of schistosomiasis in travelers reported to the GeoSentinel Surveillance Network 1997-2008. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2008; 79(5): 729-34. 51. Greenwood Z, Black J, Weld L, O'Brien D, Leder K, Von Sonnenburg F, Pandey P, Schwartz E, Connor BA, Brown G, Freedman DO, Torresi J; GeoSentinel Surveillance Network. Gastrointestinal infection among international travelers globally. J Travel Med 2008; 1 5(4):221-8. 52. Davis XM, MacDonald S, Borwein S, Freedman DO, Kozarsky PE, von Sonnenburg F, Keystone JS, Lim PL, Marano N; GeoSentinel Surveillance Network. Health risks in travelers to China: the GeoSentinel experience and implications for the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2008; 79(1): 4-8. 53. Boggild AK, Castelli F, Gautret P, Torresi J, von Sonnenburg F, Barnett ED, Greenaway CA, Lim PL, Schwartz E, Wilder-Smith A, Wilson ME; GeoSentinel Surveillance Network. Vaccine preventable diseases in returned international travelers: results from the GeoSentinel Surveillance Network. Vaccine 2010; 28(46):7389-95. 54. Esposito DH, Han PV, Kozarsky PE, Walker PF, Gkrania-Klotsas E, Barnett ED, Libman M, McCarthy AE, Field V, Connor BA, Schwartz E, MacDonald S, Sotir MJ; GeoSentinel Surveillance Network. Characteristics and spectrum of disease among ill returned travelers from pre- and post-earthquake Haiti: The GeoSentinel experience. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2012 Jan; 86(1):23-8. 55. Boggild AK, Castelli F, Gautret P, Torresi J, von Sonnenburg F, Barnett ED, Greenaway CA, Lim PL, Schwartz E, Wilder-Smith A, Wilson ME; GeoSentinel Surveillance Network. Latitudinal patterns of travel among returned travelers with influenza: results from the GeoSentinel Surveillance Network, 1997-2007. J Travel Med 2012; 19(1):4-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8305.2011.00579.x.
REVIEW, EDITORIALS, CASE SERIES, CASE REPORT ARTICLES: 56. Franco-Paredes C, Jurado R. Ankylosing Spondylitis Fibrocavitary Lung Disease. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 32:1062.
57. Franco-Paredes C, Evans J, Jurado R. Diabetes Insipidus due to Streptococcus pneumoniae Meningitis. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161; 1114-15.
58. Franco-Paredes C, Blumberg H. Tuberculosis Psoas Abscess caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Staphylococcus aureus: Case Report and Review. Am J Med Sci 2001; 321:415-17.
59. Jurado R, Franco-Paredes C. Aspiration Pneumonia: A Misnomer. Clin Infect Dis 2001;33:1612-3.
24

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 39
60. Del Rio Carlos, Franco-Paredes C. Bioterrorism: A New Public Health Problem. Sal Publ Mex 2001; 43:585-88.
61. Franco-Paredes C, Blumberg H. New Concepts in the Diagnosis of Latent Tuberculosis Infection. Consultant 2001; 41:1105-1121.
62. Franco-Paredes C, Bellehemeur T, Sanghi P, et al. Aseptic Meningitis and Retrobulbar Optic Neuritis Caused By VZV Preceding the Onset of PORN in a Patient with AIDS. AIDS 2002; 16:1045-1049.
63. Franco-Paredes C, Mehrabi D, Calle J, Jurado R. Night Sweats Revisited. Infect Dis Clin Pract 2002; 11:291-293.
64. Franco-Paredes C, Jurado R, Del Rio C. The Clinical Utility of the Urine Gram Stain. Infect Dis Clin Pract 2002; 11:561-563.
65. Franco-Paredes C, Agudelo C. Editorial Response: The Ever Expanding Clinical Spectrum of Tuberculosis. J Clin Rheumatol 2002;8:1-2.
66. Franco-Paredes C, Rebolledo P, Folch E, Hernandez I, Del Rio C. Diffuse CD8 Lymphocytosis Syndrome in HIV-infected Patients. AIDS Reader 2002; 12:408-13.
67. Franco-Paredes C. Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection as a Risk Factor for Tuberculosis Infection and Clinical Disease. Infect Med 2002; 19:475-479.
68. Franco-Paredes C, Leonard M, Jurado R, Blumberg H. Tuberculosis of the Pancreas. Report of two cases and Review of the Literature. Am J Med Sci 2002; 323(1): 54-58.
69. DiazGranados C, Franco-Paredes C, Steinberg J. A Long Suffering Patient with New Abdominal Pain. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34(9):1213-1214; 1267-1268.
70. Franco-Paredes C, Martin K. Extranodal Rosai-Dorfman Manifested in the Meninges. Southern Med J 2002; 95(9): 1101-1104.
71. Franco-Paredes C, Workowski K, Harris M. Infective Endocarditis-Endarteritis Complicating Coarctation of the Aorta. Am J Med 2002; 112(7):590-92.
72. Folch E, Hernandez I, Barragan M, Franco-Paredes C. Infectious Disease, Non-Zero Sum Thinking and the Developing World. Am J Med Sci 2003; 326:66-72.
73. Franco-Paredes C, Santos Preciado JI. Parasitology Resources on the World Wide Web: A Powerful Tool for Infectious Diseases Practitioners. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 37:694-701.
74. Franco-Paredes C, Tellez I, Santos-Preciado JI. Monkeypox Virus Infection Appears in the Americas. Salud Publ Mex 2003; 45:428-430.
75. Franco-Paredes C, Del Rio C, Nava Frías M, Rangel Frausto S, Téllez I, Santos Preciado JI. Confronting Bioterrorism: Epidemiologic, Clinical, and Preventive Aspects of Smallpox. Sal Publ Mex 2003; 45:298-309.
76. Franco-Paredes C, Kuri-Morales P, Alvarez-Lucas C, Zavala E, Betancourt M, Nava-Frias M, Santos-Preciado JI. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome: A Global View of the Epidemic. Sal Publ Mex 2003; 45:211-220.
25

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 39
77. Huneycut D, Folch E, Franco-Paredes C. Atypical Manifestations of Infections in Patients with Familial Dysautonomia. Am J Med 2003; 115(6): 505-506. 78. Franco-Paredes C, Sanghi P. Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy. Infect Med 2003; 20(8):376.
79. Franco-Paredes C, Guarner J, McCall C, Mehrabi D, Del Rio C. Clinical and Pathological Recognition of Leprosy. Am J Med 2003; 114(3):246-7. 80. Franco-Paredes C, Lammoglia L, Santos Preciado JI. Historical Perspective of Smallpox in Mexico: Origins, Elimination, and Risk of Reintroduction due to Bioterrorism. Gac Med Mex 2004; 141:321-328. 81. Santos-Preciado JI, Franco-Paredes C. Influenza Vaccine in Childhood: a Preventive Strategy of National Priority. Salud Publ Mex 2004; 46:498-500.
82. Almeida L, Franco-Paredes C, Pérez LF, Santos JI. Meningococcal Disease: Preventive and Clinical Aspects. Salud Publ Mex 2004; 46(5):438-50. 83. Franco-Paredes C, Téllez I, Del Rio C. The Inverse Relationship between Decreased Infectious Diseases and Increased Inflammatory Disease Occurrence. Arch Med Res 2004; 35:258-26. 84. Arria M, Rodríguez-Morales A, Franco-Paredes C. Galeria Eco-epidemiológica de la Cuenca Amazónica. Rev Peru Salud Publ 2005; 22:236-240. 85. Franco-Paredes C, Lammoglia L, Santos-Preciado JI. The Spanish Royal Philanthropic Expedition to Bring Smallpox Vaccination to the New World and Asia in the 19th Century. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 41:1285-1289. 86. Diaz-Borjon A, Lim S, Franco-Paredes C. Multifocal Septic Arthritis: An Unusual Complication of Invasive Streptococcus pyogenes Infection. Am J Med 2005. 118(8): 924-925. 87. Franco-Paredes C, Rodríguez A. Lepromatous Leprosy. Infect Med 2005 88. Santos-Preciado JI, Franco-Paredes C. Tratamiento Acortado Estrictamente Supervisado (TAES o DOTS) Para Tuberculosis en Poblaciones Con Niveles Moderados de Farmacorresistencia: Perspectiva del Impacto Internacional. Rev Inv Clin 2005; 57:488-490. 89. Rodríguez-Morales A, Sánchez E, Vargas M, Piccolo C, Colina R, Arria M, Franco-Paredes C. Severe Thrombocytopenia, Reply to Spinello et al. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 41:1211-1212.
90. Franco-Paredes C, Dismukes R, Nicolls D, Kozarsky P. Reply to Newton et al. Clin Infect Dis 2005;41:1688-1689. 91. Rodríguez-Morales A, Sánchez E, Vargas M, Piccolo C, Colina R, Arria M, Franco-Paredes C. Occurrence of Thrombocytopenia in Plasmodium vivax malaria. Clin Infect Dis 2005;41:130131. 92. Franco-Paredes C, Rodríguez-Morales A, Santos-Preciado JI. Bioterrorism: Preparing for the Unexpected. Rev Inv Clin 2005; 57: 57(5):695-705.
26

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 39
93. Franco-Paredes C, Tellez I, Del Rio C, Santos-Preciado JI. Pandemic Influenza: Impact of Avian Influenza. Salud Publ Mex 2005; 2: 47(2):107-9.
94. Franco-Paredes C, Dismukes R, Nicolls D, Kozarsky D. Neurotoxicity Associated To Misdiagnosis of Malaria. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 40:1710-1711.
95. Rodríguez-Morales A, Benitez J, Franco-Paredes C. Plasmodium vivax Malaria Imported from a rural Area Near Caracas Venezuela? J Trav Med 2006; 13:325-326.
96. Franco-Paredes C, Tellez I, Del Rio C. Rapid HIV Testing. Current HIV/AIDS Reports 2006; 3:169-75.
97. Franco-Paredes C, Hidron A, Steinberg JP. Photo Quiz: An 82-year-old Female from Guyana with Fever and Back pain. Chyluria due to Wuchereria bancrofti Infection. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 42 (9): 1297; 1340-1341.
98. Franco-Paredes C, Kozarsky P, Nicolls D, Dismukes R. Pelvic Echinococcosis in a Northern Iraqi Refugee. J Trav Med 2006. 13 (2): 119-122.
99. Franco-Paredes C, Santos-Preciado JI. Prevention of Malaria in Travelers. Lancet Infect Dis 2006; 6:139-149.
100. Franco-Paredes C, Santos-Preciado JI. Reply to Christenson. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 42: 731-732.
101. Franco-Paredes C, Diaz-Borjon A, Barragán L, Senger M, Leonard M. The Ever Expanding Association between Tuberculosis and Rheumatologic Diseases. Am J Med 2006; 119:470-477.
102. Franco-Paredes C, Rouphael N, Del Rio C, Santos-Preciado JI. Vaccination Strategies to Prevent Tuberculosis in the New Millennium: From BCG to New Vaccine Candidates. Int J Infect Dis 2006; 10:93-102.
103. Tellez I, Calderon O, Franco-Paredes C, Del Rio C. West Nile Virus: A Reality in Mexico. Gac Med Mex 2006; 142:493-9.
104. Franco-Paredes C, Santos-Preciado JI. Reply to Christenson. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 42:731-732.
105. Kieny MP, Costa A, Carrasco P, Perichov Y, Franco-Paredes C, Santos-Preciado JI, et al. A Global Pandemic Influenza Vaccine Action Plan. Vaccine 2006; 24:6367-6370.
106. Franco-Paredes C, Anna Von, Alicia Hidron, Alfonso J. Rodríguez-Morales, Ildefonso Tellez, Maribel Barragán, Danielle Jones, Cesar G. Náquira, Jorge Mendez. Chagas Disease: An Impediment in Achieving the Millennium Development Goals in Latin America. BMC Int Health Hum Rights 2007; 7:7.
107. Von A, Zaragoza E, Jones D, Rodriguez-Morales A, Franco-Paredes C. New Insights into Chagas Disease: A Neglected Disease in Latin America. J Infect Developing Countries 2007; 1:99-111.
108. Tellez I, Franco-Paredes C, Caliendo A, Del Rio C. Rapid HIV Test: A Primer for Clinicians. Infect Med 2007; 24:381-385.
27

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 39
109. Franco-Paredes C, Rouphael N, Rodríguez-Morales A, Folch E, Mendez N, Hurst JW. Cardiac Manifestations of Parasitic Diseases Part 1. General Aspects and Immunopathogenesis. Clin Cardiol 2007; 30:195-199.
110. Franco-Paredes C, Rouphael N, Rodríguez-Morales A, Folch E, Mendez N, Hurst JW. Cardiac Manifestations of Parasitic Diseases Part 2. Myocardial Manifestations of Parasitic Diseases. Clin Cardiol 2007; 30:218-222.
111. Franco-Paredes C, Rouphael N, Rodríguez-Morales A, Folch E, Mendez N, Hurst JW. Cardiac Manifestations of Parasitic Diseases Part 3. Pericardial Manifestations of Parasitic Diseases and Other Cardiopulmonary Manifestations. Clin Cardiol 2007; 30:277-280.
112. Rouphael N, Talati N, Franco-Paredes C. A Painful Thorn in the Foot: Eumycetoma. Am J Med Sci 2007; 334:142-144.
113. Zimmer S, Franco-Paredes C. Efficacy of Nitazoxanide in the Treatment of Cyclospora cayetanensis in a Patient Allergic to Sulfas. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 44(3):466-7.
114. Kaplan R, Rebolledo P, Gonzalez E, Franco-Paredes C. An Unexpected Visitor: Mycobacterium kansasii Cutaneous Infection. Am J Med 2007; 120(5):415-6.
115. Seybold U, Blumberg H, Talati N, Franco-Paredes C. Hematogenous Osteomyelitis Mimicking Osteosarcoma due to Community Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Infect 2007; 35(3): 190-3.
116. Liff D, Kraft C, Pohlel K, Sperling L, Chen E, Franco-Paredes C. Nocardia Nova Aortitis Following Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery. J Am Soc Echo 2007; 20(5):537:e7-8.
117. Rodriguez-Morales AJ, Franco-Paredes C. Paracoccidiodomycosis (South American Blastomycosis) of the Larynx Mimicking Carcinoma. Am J Med Sci 2008; 335:149-150.
118. Franco-Paredes C. Filariasis due Loa loa is also a cause of Angioedema. Am J Med 2008; 121(10): e29.
119. Rodriguez-Morales A, Benitez J, Tellez I, Franco-Paredes C. Chagas Disease Screening among Latin American Immigrants in Non-endemic Settings. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease 2008; 6:162-3.
120. Talati N, Rouphael N, Kuppali K, Franco-Paredes C. Spectrum of Central Nervous System Manifestations due to Rapidly Growing Mycobacteria. Lancet Infect Dis 2008; 8:390-8.
121. Rifakis P, Rodríguez-Morales A, Franco-Paredes C. Atypical Plasmodium vivax Malaria in a Traveler: Bilateral hydronephrosis, Severe Thrombocytopenia, and Hypotension. J Trav Med 2008; 15(2): 119-21.
122. Osorio-Pinzon J, Carvajal C, Sussman O, Buitrago R, Franco-Paredes C. Acute liver failure due to dengue virus infection. Int J Infect Dis 2008; 12: 444-445.
123. Jacob J, Franco-Paredes C. The Stigmatization of leprosy in India and its Impact on future approaches to elimination and control. PloS Neglected Tropical Diseases 2008; 30:e113.
124. Difrancesco L, Mora L, Doss M, Small J, Williams M, Franco-Paredes C. Short of Breath: Not short of diagnosis. J Hosp Med 2009; 4(1):60-7.
28

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 39
125. Whitaker JA, Edupuganti S, Del Rio C, Franco-Paredes C. Rethinking Typhoid Fever Vaccines: Implications for travelers and those living in endemic areas. J Travel Med 2009, 16(1): 46-52.
126. Franco-Paredes C, Hidron A, Lesesne J, Tellez I, Del Rio C. HIV-AIDS: Pretravel recommendations and health-related risks. Topics in HIV 2009; 17(1): 2-11. 127. Franco-Paredes C, Jacob JT, Stryjewska B, Yoder L. Two patients with leprosy and the sudden appearance of Inflammation in the skin and new sensory loss. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2009; 3(9): e425. 128. Franco-Paredes C, Hidron A, Jacob J, Nicolls D, Kuhar D, Caliendo A. Transplantation and Tropical Infectious Diseases. Int J Infect Dis 2009; 14(3): e189-96. 129. Parker S, Vogenthaler N, Franco-Paredes C. Leishmania tropica Cutaneous and Presumptive Concomitant Viscerotropic Leishmaniasis with Prolonged Incubation. Arch Dermatol 2009; 145(9): 1023-6. 130. DiazGranados C, Franco-Paredes C. HIV and Chagas Disease Co-Infection: An Evolving Epidemiologic and Clinical Association. Lancet Infect Dis 2009; 9:324-330. 131. Hidron A, Franco-Paredes C, Drenkard C. A rare opportunistic infection in a woman with systemic lupus erythematous and multiple skin lesions. Lupus 2009; 18 (12): 1100-3. 132. Franco-Paredes C, Kozarsky P. The Bottom Line. Am J Med 2009; 122(12): 1067-8. 133. Franco-Paredes C, Bottazzi ME, Hotez PJ. The Unfinished Agenda of Chagas Disease Control in the Era of Globalization. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2009 Jul 7; 3(7): e470. 134. Franco-Paredes C, Carrasco P, Del Rio C, Santos Preciado JI. Respuesta al Brote de Influenza A H1N1. Salud Publ Mex 2009; 51 (3): 183-186. 135. Franco-Paredes C. An Unusual Clinical Presentation of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in a Sudanese Refugee. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health 2009; 12(2): 267-9. 136. Kempker R, DiFrancesco L, Gorgojo A, Franco-Paredes C. Xantogranulomathous pyelonephritis caused by Community-Associated MRSA. Cases Journal 2009; 2: 7437. 137. Franco-Paredes C, Carrasco P, Santos-Preciado JI. The First Influenza Pandemic in the New Millennium: Lessons Learned Hitherto for Current Control Efforts and Overall Pandemic Preparedness. Journal of Immune Based Therapies and Vaccines 2009, 7:2. 138. Livorsi D, Qureshi S, Howard M, Franco-Paredes C. Brainstem Encephalitis: An Unusual Presentation of Herpes Simplex Virus Infection. J Neurol 2010; 257(9): 1432-7. 139. Del Rio C, Franco-Paredes C. The Perennial threat of influenza viruses: The Mexican Experience during the Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Pandemic. Arch Med Res 2010; 40(8):641-2. 140. Santos-Preciado JI, Franco-Paredes C, Hernandez-Ramos MI, Tellez I, Del Rio C, Roberto Tapia-Conyer R. What have we learned from the Novel Influenza A (H1N1) Influenza Pandemic in 2009 for strengthening Pandemic Influenza Preparedness? Arch Med Res 2010; 40(8): 673-6. 141. Franco-Paredes C, Hernandez-Ramos MI, Del Rio C, Alexander KT, Tapia-Conyer R, Santos-Preciado JI. H1N1 Influenza Pandemics: Comparing the Events of 2009 in Mexico with those of 1976, and 1918-1919. Arch Med Res 2010; 40(8): 6730-6. 142. Graham A, Furlong S, Owusu K, Margoles L, Franco-Paredes C. Clinical Management of Leprosy Reactions. Infect Dis Clin Pract 2010; 18: 234-7. 143. Hidron A, Vogenthaler N, Santos-Preciado JI, Rodriguez-Morales AJ, Franco-Paredes C, Rassi A. Cardiac Involvement with Parasitic Diseases. Clin Microb Rev 2010; 23 (2): 1-27. 144. Franco-Paredes C, Zeuli J, Hernandez-Ramos I, Santos-Preciado JI. Preserving Idealism in Global Health. Global Health Prom 2010; 17(4): 57-60.
29

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 31 of 39
145. Franco-Paredes C. Reconstructing the Past of Poliovirus Eradication. Lancet Infect Dis 2010; 10(10): 660-1. 146. Franco-Paredes C, Ko AI, Aksoy S, Hotez PJ. A New Clinical Section in PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases: NTD Photo Quiz. PLoS Neglect Trop Dis 2010; 4(9): e760. 147. Tellez I, Franco-Paredes C. Actinomycetoma. PLoS Neglect Trop Dis 2010; 4(9): e772. 148. Franco-Paredes C, Hernandez I, Santos-Preciado JI. Equidad en inmunizaciones en las poblaciones más vulnerables en Mesoamérica: Plan Regional del Sistema Mesoamericano de Salud Pública. Salud Publ. Mex 2011; 53 Suppl 3:S323-32. 149. Santos-Preciado JI, Rodriguez MH, Franco-Paredes C. Equidad en Salud en America Latina: De la Oficina Panamericana de Salud Pública a la Iniciativa de Salud Pública. Salud Publ. Mex 2011; 53 Suppl 3:S289-94. 150. Rassi A Jr., Rassi A, Franco-Paredes C. A Latin-American woman with palpitations, a right bundle branch block, and an apical aneursym. PLoS Neglect Trop Dis 2011; 5(2):e852. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000852. 151. Gupta D, Green J, Franco-Paredes C, Lerakis S. Challenges in the Clinical Management of Blood-Culture Negative Endocarditis: the case of Bartonella henselae infection. Am J Med 2011; 124(3):e1-2. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2010.09.022. 152. Franco-Paredes C. Health Equity is not only Healthcare Delivery. Lancet 2011; 377: 1238. 153. Franco-Paredes C, Santos-Preciado JI. Freedom, Justice, and the Neglected Tropical Diseases. PLoS Neglect Trop Dis 2011; 5(8):e1235. 154. Sellers B, Hall P, Cine-Gowdie S, Hays AL, Patel K, Lockhart SR, Franco-Paredes C. Cryptococcus gattii: An Emerging Fungal Pathogen in the Southeastern United States. Am J Med Sci. 2012; 343(6):510-1. doi: 10.1097/MAJ.0b013e3182464bc7. 155. Franco-Paredes C. Poliovirus eradication. Lancet Infect Dis 2012; 12(6):432-3. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70102-0. 156. Franco-Paredes C, Ray S. Causes of persistent of acid-fast positive smears in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis. Am J Med 2012; 125(12):e3-4. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.03.002. 157. Franco-Paredes C. Causes of persistent of acid-fast positive smears in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis. Am J Med 2013: 126(7):e17. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.03.001. 158. Franco-Paredes C. Illness and Death in the Universe. Perm J. 2013; 17(4):90-1. 159. Hare A, Franco-Paredes C. Ocular Larva Migrans: A Severe Manifestation of an Unseen Epidemic. Curr Trop Med Rep 2014; 1: 69-73. 160. Franco-Paredes C. Recovering our Human Story. J Cosmology and Philosophy 2014;12: 210-213. 161. Powell DR, Patel S, Franco-Paredes C. Varicella-Zoster virus vasculopathy: The growing association between herpes zoster virus and strokes. Am J Med Sci 2014; 350(3):243-5. 162. Franco-Paredes C. The growing threat of leishmaniasis in travelers. Trav Med Infect Dis 2014; 12(6 Pt A):559-60. doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2014.10.020. 163. Franco-Paredes C, Sellers B, Hayes A, Chane T, Patel K, Lockhart S, Marr K. Management of Cryptococcus gattii meningoencephalitis. Lancet Infect Dis 2014; 15(3):348-55. 164. White C, Franco-Paredes C. Leprosy in the 21st Century. Clin Microb Rev 2014; 28(1): 80-94. 165. Carrasco P, Franco-Paredes C, Andrus J, Waller K, Maassen A, Symenouh E, Hafalia G. Inaugural conference of the International Association of Immunization Managers (IAIM), Istanbul Turkey, 3-4 March 2015; Vaccine 2015; 33(33):4047-50.
30

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 32 of 39
166. Franco-Paredes C, Rodriguez-Morales AJ. Unsolved matters in leprosy: a descriptive review and call for further research. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 2016; 15(1):33. 167. Rodriguez-Morales AJ, Banderia AC, Franco-Paredes C. The expanding spectrum of modes of transmission of Zika virus: a global concern. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 2016; 15:13. doi: 10.1186/s12941-016-0128-2. 168. Khan MI, Katrinak C, Freeman A, Franco-Paredes C. Enteric Fever and Invasive Nontyphidal Salmonellosis – 9th International Conference on typhoid and Invasive NTS Disease, Bali, Indonesia, April 30-May 3, 2015. Emerg Infect Dis 2016; 22(4): doi: 10.3201/eid2204.151463. 169. Franco-Paredes C, Khan MI, Santos-Preciado JI, Gonzalez-Diaz E, Rodriguez-Morales AJ, Gotuzzo E. Enteric Fever: A Slow Reponse to An Old Plague. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2016; 10(5):e0004597. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004597. 170. Rodriguez-Morales AJ, Villamil-Gomez WE, Franco-Paredes C. The arboviral burden of disease caused by co-circulation and co-infection of dengue, chikungunya and Zika in the Americas. Trav Med Infect Dis 2016; 14(3):177-9. doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2016.05.004. 171. Alvarado-Socarras JL, Ocampo-Gonzalez M, Vargas Soler JA, Rodriguez-Morales AJ, Franco-Paredes C. Congenital and neonatal Chikungunya in Colombia. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2016;5(3): e17-20. 172. Franco-Paredes C, Chastain DB, Ezigbo C, Callins KR. Reducing transmission of HIV in the Southeastern U.S. Lancet HIV 2017; 4(3):e101-e102. 173. Franco-Paredes C, Chastain D, Marcos LA, Rodriguez-Morales AJ. Cryptococcal meningoencephalitis in AIDS: When to start antiretroviral therapy? Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 2017; 16:9. 174. Khan MI, Franco-Paredes C, Ochiai RL, Mogasale V, Sushant S. Barriers to typhoid fever vaccine access in endemic countries. Research and Reports in Tropical Medicine; 2017; 8:37-44. 175. Franco-Paredes C, Chastain D, Taylor P, Stocking S, Sellers B. Boar hunting and brucellosis caused by Brucella suis. Trav Med Infect Dis 2017; S1477-8939(17): 30037-6. 176. Chastain DB, Henao-Martinez AF, Franco-Paredes C. Cryptococcal Antigen Negative Cryptococcal Meningoencephalitis. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2017; 89(2): 143-145. 177. Chastain DB, Henao-Martinez A, Franco-Paredes C. Opportunistic invasive fungal infections in HIV/AIDS: Cryptococcosis, Histoplasmosis, Coccidioidomycosis and Talaromycosis. Current Infect Dis Rep 2017; 19(10): 36. 178. Chastain DB, Kayla Stover, Franco-Paredes C. Adressing Antiretroviral TherapyAssociated Drug-Drug Interactions in Patients Requiring Treatment for Opportunistic Infections in Low-Income and Resource-Limited Settings. J Clin Pharmacol 2017; 57(11):1387-1399. 179. Franco-Paredes C. The Harmony of Disequilibrium. Permanente J. 2017; 22. doi: 10.712/TPP/17-067. 180. Franco-Paredes C, Henao-Martinez A, Chastain DB. A 27-year-old male with blurry vision, oral and nasal mucosal lesions, and a skin rash. Clin Infect Dis 2018; 181. Henao-Martinez AF, Olague N, Franco-Paredes C. Spontaneous Mycobacterium bolletti skin abscesses —an under recognized zoonosis from raw bovine milk. Trav Med Infect Dis 2018 Jan 29. pii: S1477-8939(18)30003-6. doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2018.01.003. PMID: 29477362. 182. Franco-Paredes C, Henao-Martinez AF, Mathur S, Villamil-Gomez W. A Man Who Harvest Peanuts with Verrucous Lesions in his Right Index Finger. Am J Med Sci 2018; Mar; 355(3):e7. doi: 10.1016/j.amjms.2017.11.010. Epub 2017 Nov 22. No abstract available. PMID: 2954993
31

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 33 of 39
183. Henao-Martinez AF, Franco-Paredes C, Palestine A, Montoya G. Symptomatic acute toxoplasmosis in returning travelers. Open Forum Infect Dis 2018;5(4):ofy058. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofy058. eCollection 2018 Apr. PMID: 29644250. 184. Steele GM, Franco-Paredes C, Chastain DB. Non-infectious causes of fever in adults. Nurse Pract 2018Apr 19; 43(4):38-44. doi: 10.1097/01.NPR.0000531067.65817.7d. 185. Henao-Martinez AF, Chastain DB, Franco-Paredes C, Treatment of cryptococcosis in nonHIV immunocompromised patients. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2018; PMID 29738314. 186. Chastain DB, Sam JI, Steele GM, Lowder LO, Franco-Paredes C. Expanding Spectrum of Toxoplasmosis gondii: Thymoma and Toxoplasmic encephalitis. Open Forum Infect Dis 2018; Jul 7;5(7):ofy163. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofy163. eCollection 2018 Jul.. 187. Bruner KT, Chastain DB, Henao-Martinez AF, Franco-Paredes C. Cryptococcus gattii complex infections in HIV-infected patients, Southeastern United States. Emerg Infect Dis 2018; 24(11): 1998-2002. 189. José A. Suárez, Lolimar Carreño, Alberto E. Paniz-Mondolfi, Francisco J. Marco-Canosa, Héctor Freilij, Jorge A. Riera, Alejandro Risquez, Andrea G. Rodriguez-Morales, Evimar Hernández-Rincón, Jorge Alvarado-Socarras, Gustavo Contreras, Maritza Cabrera, Rosa M. Navas, Fredi Díaz-Quijano, Tamara Rosales, Rosa A. Barbella-Aponte, Wilmer E. VillamilGómez, Marietta Díaz, Yenddy Carrero, Anishmenia Pineda, Nereida Valero-Cedeño, Cesar Cuadra-Sánchez, Yohama Caraballo-Arias, Belkis J. Menoni-Blanco, Giovanni Provenza, Jesús E. Robles, María Triolo-Mieses, Eduardo Savio-Larriera, Sergio Cimerman, Ricardo J. Bello, Carlos Franco-Paredes, Juliana Buitrago, Marlen Martinez-Gutierrez, Julio Maquera-Afaray, Marco A. Solarte-Portilla, Sebastián Hernández-Botero, Krisell Contreras, Jaime A. CardonaOspina, D. Katterine Bonilla-Aldana, Alfonso J. Rodriguez-Morales. Infectious Diseases, Social, Economic and Political Crises, Anthropogenic Disasters and Beyond: Venezuela 2019Implications for public health and travel medicine. Rev Panam Enf Inf 2018; 1(2):73-93. 190. Gharamati A, Rao A, Pecen PE, Henao-Martinez AF, Franco-Paredes C, Montoya JG. Acute Disseminated Toxoplasmosis with Encephalitis. Open Forum Infect Dis 2018; Oct 17; 5 (11):ofy259. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofy259. 191. Franco-Paredes C, Rodriguez-Morales AJ, Luis A. Marcos, Henao-Martinez AF, VillamilGomez WE, Gotuzzo E, Bonifaz A. Cutaneous Mycobacterial Diseases. Clin Microb Rev 2018; 14; 32(1). pii: e00069-18. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00069-18. 192. Henao-Martínes AF, Pinto N, Henao San Martin V, Franco-Paredes C, Gharamati A. Successful Treatment of Gonococcal Osteomyelitis with One Week of Intravenous Antibiotic Therapy. Int J STDs HIV 2019; 193. Reno E, Foster G, Franco-Paredes C, Henao-Martinez AF. Fatal fulminant hepatitis A in a US traveler returning from Peru. J Trav Med 2019. 194. Canfield G, C, Mann S, Zimmer S, Franco-Paredes C. A 31-Year-Old Micronesian Man with Shoulder Fungating Mass. Clin Infect Dis 2019; 195. Parra-Henao G, Oliveros H, Hotez PJ, Motoa G, Franco-Paredes C, Henao-Martínez AF. In Search of Congenital Chagas Disease in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2019;101(3):482-483. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.19-0110. PMID: 31264558. 196. Bonilla-Aldana DK, Suárez JA, Franco-Paredes C, Vilcarromero S, Mattar S, GómezMarín JE, Villamil-Gómez WE, Ruíz-Sáenz J, Cardona-Ospina JA, Idarraga-Bedoya SE, GarcíaBustos JJ, Jimenez-Posada EV, Rodríguez-Morales AJ. Brazil burning! What is the potential impact of the Amazon wildfires on vector-borne and zoonotic emerging diseases? - A statement
32

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 34 of 39
from an international experts meeting. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2019:101474. doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2019.101474. 197. Henao-Martinez AF, Archuleta S, Vargas D, Franco-Paredes C. A Latin American patient with a left ventricular pseudoaneurysm presenting with progressive dyspnea and palpitations. Am J Med 2019; doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2019.10.006 198. Canfield GS, Henao-Martinez AF, Franco-Paredes C, Zhelnin K, Wyles D, Gardner EM. Corticosteroids for post-transplant Immune reconstitution syndrome in Cryptococcus gattii Meningoencephalitis: Case report and literature review. Open Forum Infect Dis 2019; 6(11): ofz460. Doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofz460. PMID: 31737740. 199. Kon S, Hawkins K, Franco-Paredes C. Intramedullary Spinal Cord Lesions in an Immunocompromised Host due to Mycobacterium Haemophilum. ID Cases 2019; 200. Franco-Paredes C, Rodriguez-Morales AJ, Henao-Rodriguez AJ, Carrasco P, SantosPreciado JI. Vaccination Strategies to prevent paralytic poliomielitis due to cVDPV2. Lancet Infect Dis 2019; 201. Motoa G, Pate A, Franco-Paredes C, Chastain D, Henao-Martinez Aj, Hojat L. Use of procalcitonin to guide discontinuation of antimicrobial therapy in patients with persistent intraabdominal collections: A case series. Case Rep Infect Dis 2019; 202. Murillo-Garcia D, Galindo J, Pinto N, Motoa G Benamu E, Franco-Paredes C, Chastain D, Henao-Martinez AF. Anaerobic bacteremias in left ventricular assist devices and advanced heart failure. Case Rep Infect Dis 2019; 204. Franco-Paredes, C, Villamil-Gómez Wilmer E., Schultz, J, Henao-Martínez AF, ParraHenao, G, Rassi Jr. A, Rodriguez-Morales AJ, Suarez JA. A Deadly Feast: Elucidating the Burden of Orally Acquired Acute Chagas Disease in Latin America - Public Health and Travel Medicine Importance. Trav Med Infect Dis 2020; 205. Reno E, Quan N, Franco-Paredes C, Chastain DB, Chauhan L, Rodriguez-Morales AJ, Henao-Martinez A. Prevention of Yellow Fever in Travelers: An Update. Lancet Infect Dis 2020; 206. Franco-Paredes C, Griselda Montes de Oca Sanchez, Cassandra White. Global Leprosy Status 2020: Still Losing Touch. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2020; 207. Basco SA, Steele GM, Henao-Martinez AF, Franco-Paredes C, Chastain DB. Unexpected etiology of a pleural empyema in a patient with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLLL): Capnocytophaga ochracea. ID Cases 2020: Mar 20;20:e00747. doi: 10.1016/j.idcr.2020.e00747. eCollection 2020. 208. Rodriguez-Morales AJ, Gallego V, Escalera-Antezana JP, Mendez CA, Zambrano LI, Franco-Paredes C, Suarez JA, Rodriguez-Enciso HD, Balbin-Ramon GH, Savio-Larriera E, Risquez A, Cimerman S. COVID-19 in Latin America: The implications of the first confirmed case in Brazil. Travel Med Infect Dis 2020; doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101613. 209. Rodríguez-Morales AJ, Cardona-Ospina JA, Gutiérrez-Ocampo E, Villamizar-Peña R, Holguin-Rivera Y, Escalera-Antezana JP, Alvarado-Arnez LE, Bonilla-Aldana DK, FrancoParedes C, Henao-Martinez AF, Paniz-Mondolfi A, Lagos-Grisales GJ, Ramírez-Vallejo E, Suárez JA, Zambrano LI, Villamil-Gómez WE, Balbin-Ramon GJ, Rabaan AA, Harapan H, Dhama K, Nishiura H, Kataoka H, Ahmad T, Sah R, On behalf of the Latin American Network of Coronavirus Disease 2019-COVID-19 Research (LANCOVID-19) (www.lancovid.org). Clinical, Laboratory and Imaging Features of COVID-19: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Travel Med Infect Dis 2020;
33

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 35 of 39
210. Meyer J, Franco-Paredes C, Yaizal F, Gartland M, Parmar P. COVID-19 and the Coming Plague in U.S. Immigration Detention Centers. Lancet Infect Dis 2020; 211. Franco-Paredes C. Albert Camus’ ‘The COVID-19 Plague” Revisited. Clin Infect Dis 2020 Apr 17. pii: ciaa454. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa454 212. Pritchett MA, Oberg CL, Belanger A, De Cardenas J, Cheng G, Cumbo Nacheli G, FrancoParedes C, Singh J, Toth J, Zgoda M, Folch E. Society for Advanced Bronchoscopy Consensus Statement and Guidelines for bronchoscopy and airway management aid the COVID-19 pandemic. J Thorac Dis 2020 | http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2020.04.32. BOOK CHAPTERS: Franco-Paredes C, Albrecht H. Anisakiasis (2007). In: Antimicrobial Therapy and Vaccines; Volume I: Microbes (www.antimicrobe.org), Yu VL, et al. (Ed). ESun Technologies, Pittsburgh, PA. 2007.
Franco-Paredes C, Albrecht H. Visceral Larva Migrans (2007). In: Antimicrobial Therapy and Vaccines; Volume I: Microbes (www.antimicrobe.org), Yu VL, et al. (Ed). ESun Technologies, Pittsburgh, PA. 2007.
Franco-Paredes C. American Trypanosomiasis. Chagas’Disease. In: Eds: Kozarsky P, Arguin P, Reed C. Yellow Book: Health Information for Travelers 2007-2008, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Elsevier Ltd.
Franco-Paredes C. The Post-travel Period. In: Eds: Kozarsky P, Arguin P, Reed C. Yellow Book: Health Information for Travelers 2007-2008, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Elsevier Ltd.
Hidron A, Franco-Paredes C. American Trypanosomiasis. Chagas’Disease. In: Eds: Brunnete GW, Kozarksy P, Magill A, Shlim D. Yellow Book: Health Information for Travelers 20092010, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Elsevier Ltd, 2009. ISBN: 978-0-7020-34817.
Franco-Paredes C. General Approach to the Returned Traveler. In: Eds: Brunnete GW, Kozarksy P, Magill A, Shlim D. Yellow Book: Health Information for Travelers 2009-2010, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Elsevier Ltd, 2009. ISBN: 978-0-7020-3481-7.
Franco-Paredes C. Asymptomatic Screening of the Returned Traveler. In: Eds: Brunnete GW, Kozarksy P, Magill A, Shlim D. Yellow Book: Health Information for Travelers 2009-2010, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Elsevier Ltd, 2009. ISBN: 978-0-7020-3481-7.
Franco-Paredes C, Santos-Preciado JI. Introduction of Antimicrobial Agents in Poor-Resource Countries: Impact on the Emergence of Resistance. In: Antimicrobial Resistance in Developing Countries. Ed. Byarugaba DK, Sosa A. Springer Science & Business Media, 2010.
Hidron A, Franco-Paredes C. American Trypanosomiasis. Chagas’Disease. In: Eds: Kozarksy P, Magill A, Shlim D. Yellow Book: Health Information for Travelers 2011-2012. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Elsevier Ltd, 2011. ISBN: 978-0-7020-3481-7.
Franco-Paredes C, Hochberg N. General Approach to the Returned Traveler. In: Eds: Kozarksy P, Magill A, Shlim D. Yellow Book: Health Information for Travelers 2011-2012, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Elsevier Ltd, 2011. ISBN: 978-0-7020-3481-7.
34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 36 of 39
Franco-Paredes C. Asymptomatic Screening of the Returned Traveler. In: Eds: Kozarksy P, Magill A, Shlim D. Yellow Book: Health Information for Travelers 2011-2012, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Elsevier Ltd, 2009. ISBN: 978-0-7020-3481-7.
Hochberg N, Franco-Paredes C. Emerging Infections in Mobile Populations. In: Emerging Infections 9. Ed. Scheld WM, Grayson ML, Hughes JM. American Society of Microbiology Press 2010. ISBN. 978-1-55581-525-7.
Franco-Paredes C, Chagas Disease (American Trypanosomiasis). In: Farrar J, Hotez P, Junghanss T, Kang G, Lalloo D, White NJ. Manson’s Tropical Medicine 23rd Edition, Elsevier, London, U.K., 2014.
Franco-Paredes C, Keystone J. Fever in the Returned Traveler. In: Empiric, Antimicrobial Therapy and Vaccines (www.antimicrobe.org). Yu VL, et al (Ed). ESun Technologies, Pittsburgh, PA, 2014.
Franco-Paredes C. Mycobacterium leprae (Leprosy). In: Antimicrobial Therapy and Vaccines (www.antimicrobe.org). Yu VL, et al (Ed). ESun Technologies, Pittsburgh, PA, 2015
Franco-Paredes C, Albrecht H. Anisikasis In: Antimicrobial Therapy and Vaccines (www.antimicrobe.org). Yu VL, et al (Ed). ESun Technologies, Pittsburgh, PA, 2015. Franco-Paredes C. Illness and Death in the Universe. In: Narrative Medicine Anthology. Ed: Tom Janisse. The Permanente Press, Oakland, California, Portland Oregon,
2016, pp. 23-25. ISBN: 978-0-9770463-4-8. Villamil-Gomez W, Reyes-Escalante M, Franco-Paredes C. Severe and complicated malaria due to Plasmodium vivax. In: Current Topics in Malaria. Ed: Rodriguez-Morales AJ. ISBN 978953-51-2790-1, Print ISBN 978-953-51-2789-5. InTechOpen 2016. Franco-Paredes C. Mycobacterial Infections of the Central Nervous System. In: The Microbiology of the Central Nervous System Infections. Ed. Kon K, Rai M. Elsevier 2018. ISBN 978-0-12-813806-9 Franco-Paredes C. Leprosy. In: Neglected Tropical Diseases. Drug Discovery and Development. Ed: Swinney D, Pollastri. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 2019. Franco-Paredes C, Henao-Martinez AJ. Legal Perspectives in Travel Medicine. In: Eds: Kozarksy P, Weinberg M. Yellow Book: Health Information for Travelers 2019-2020, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Elsevier Ltd, 2011. ISBN: 978-0-7020-3481-7. Franco-Paredes C. Prevención de la transmisión. In: Guerrero MI, Hernández CA y Rodríguez G Editores La lepra: una enfermedad vigente. Centro Dermatológico Federico Lleras Acosta Bogotá DC, Colombia. Panamericana Formas e Impresos. 2019. p. 309-322.
Published Abstracts in Peer-Reviewed Journals: Kleinschmidt-DeMasters B, Hawkins K, Franco-Paredes C. Non-tubercular mycobacterial spinal cord abscesses in an HIV plus male due M. haemophilum. J Neuropathol Experim Neurol 2018; 77(6): 532. Pate A, Franco-Paredes C, Henao-Martinez A. Cryptococcal meningitis: A comparison of clinical features and outcomes by HIV Status. Open Forum Infect Dis 2019; Oct 6 (Suppl 2): S629-S630. PMC6809090.
35

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 37 of 39

FORMAL TEACHING

Medical Student Teaching 2001 - 2002 Clinical Methods, Emory University School of Medicine

I. 2001 - 2002 Clinical Instructor Harvey Cardiology Course, Emory University School
of Medicine 2001 - 2002 Problem-Based Learning for Second year Medical Students, EUSM

2005-2011 Clinical Methods Preceptor, ECLH

2006-2008

Medical Spanish - Instructor for M2, EUSM

2006-2007 Directed Study on Social Determinants of Infectious Diseases for M2 students (Lindsay Margolis and Jean Bendik), EUSM

2007-2011 Instructor - Global Health for M2 Students, EUSM

2007-2008 Presentation-Case Discussion – Social Determinants of Diseases – Coordinated by Dr. Bill Eley – Emory School of Medicine New Curriculum.

2018-

Small Group: Parasitic Diseases, Microbiology Course for First Year Medical Students, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Center.

2019-

MS-2 Small group discussion Microbiology, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Center: Parasitic Diseases, CNS Infections, Septic Arthritis-Cat Bite

2019-

Class Global Health and Underserved Populations of the New SOM CU Curriculum. Course Co-Director. Pilot Class (Jan 6-Jan 17, 2020).

2020-

MS-2 Small group discussion Microbiology, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Center: Parasitic Diseases, CNS Infections, Septic Arthritis-Cat Bite

Graduate Program

Training programs

2006-2011 Professor - GH511 (Global Health 511) International Infectious Diseases Prevention and Control, Rollins School of Public Health

2009-2011 Professor – GH500 D – Key Issues in Global Health, Career MPH Program

2006-2011 Thesis Advisor to students Global Health Track – Hubert Department of Global Health, Rollins School of Public Health of Emory University

2008-2011

Coordinator International Exchange between Rollins School of Public Health and National Institute of Public Health, Cuernavaca, Mexico – Supported by the Global Health Institute of Emory University

Residency and Fellowship Program:

2004-2011 Resident Report – Noon Conferences Emory Crawford Long Hospital and Grady Memorial Hospital

36

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 38 of 39

2004-2011
2005-2008 2005-2011
2005 2006 2008 2008-2011 2009
2009
2017
2017
2018
2017-
2019

Didactic Lectures on Parasitic Diseases and Non-tuberculous mycobacterial diseases for Internal Medicine Residents and Infectious Disease Fellows
Coordinator Journal Club Infectious Disease Division Travel Medicine Elective, Internal Medicine Residents (2 internal residents per month)
Grand Rounds – EUH - Department of Medicine: “Travel Medicine”
Grand Rounds – ECLH – Department of Medicine: “Malaria”
Grand Rounds - ECLH – Department of Medicine: “Leprosy”
Journal Club Coordinator, Internal Medicine Residency Program – ECLH
Grand Rounds - EUH – Department of Medicine: “Leprosy a Modern Perspective of an Ancient Disease”
Grand Rounds – Pulmonary and Critical Care Division – Neglected Tropical Diseases of the Respiratory Tract, June 16, 2009
Grand Rounds – Leprosy, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Center, Division of Infectious Diseases, December 2017
Grand Rounds – Infections associated with Secondary Antiphospholid Syndrome, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Center, Division of Rheumatology,
Didactic Session – Travel Medicine (Pretravel and Postravel) Infectious Diseases Fellowship Anschutz Medical Center, Division of Infectious Diseases
Infectious Diseases Fellows Clinic, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Center, IDPG.
Invited Speaker: Travel Medicine, Pretravel/Postravel Care, Physician Assistant Program, September 12, 2019, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Center

Other categories: 2000-2002 Physician Assistant Supervision during Fellowship/Junior Faculty, Emory
University
2004-2007 Mentoring of four College Students to enter into Medical School (Emory, Southern University, and Dartmouth):
Lindsay Margolis 2004-Emory University
Michael Woodworth 2005 – Emory University
Peter Manyang 2007 – Southern University
Padraic Chisholm 2007 – Southern University/Emory University

37

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 39 of 39

2009-2011 20172019-

Project Leader. Partnership – Emory Global Health Institute – University-wide Emory Travel Well Clinic and is titled Hansen’s disease in the state of Georgia: A Modern Reassessment of an Ancient Disease”. http://www.globalhealth.emory.edu/fundingOpportunities/projectideas. php. Students: 5 MPH students (RN/MPH, MD/MPH)
Infectious Diseases Fellowship Program, University of
Colorado, Anschutz Medical Center. Teaching activities
Inpatient and outpatient (ID Fellows Weekly Clinic)
Infectious Diseases Fellowship Program Director
University of Colorado, Aurora Colorado

38

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-2 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-2 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: 20-cv-977-PAB THOMAS CARRANZA; JESUS MARTINEZ; RICHARD BARNUM; THOMAS LEWIS; MICHAEL WARD; COLBY PROPES; and CHAD HUNTER,
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
[AMENDED PROPOSED] ORDER
Having considered the evidence and authority submitted by the parties in this matter, and in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, the Court finds that entry of interim injunctive relief is appropriate in this case because: Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits; there is a real threat of irreparable harm absent injunctive relief; the balance of harms favors entry of an injunction; and the issuance of injunctive relief is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are being held under unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the Weld County Jail in violation of their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993). The conditions of confinement Plaintiffs are currently being held under are likely to cause them to suffer irreparable harm absent interim injunctive relief. Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians v. Pierce, 253 F.3d 1234,
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-2 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
1250 (10th Cir. 2001). The balance of harms weighs in favor of granting interim injunctive relief because Plaintiffs’ situation is life and death. Edmisten v. Werholtz, 287 F. App’x 728, 732-35 (10th Cir. 2008); see also Thakker, et al. v. Doll, et al., No. 20 C 0480, Dkt. 47, at 24 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2020). Finally, the public interest favors stopping the spread of COVID-19, Bent v. Barr, No. 19-cv-06123-DMR, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62792, at *22-24 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2020) (collecting cases), and protecting Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Kikumura v. Hurley, 242 F.3d 950, 963 (10th Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, this Court issues the following injunctive relief requiring that Defendant: 1. Physically distance all inmates from one another and staff within the Weld County
Jail, which necessitates at least six feet of distance between individuals at all times; 2. Identify inmates at high-risk of severe disease and dying from COVID-19, in
accordance with guidelines from the CDC and CDPHE, and physically distance these individuals particularly (including, but not limited to, housing these individuals in single-cells); 3. On a daily basis, thoroughly and professionally disinfect and sanitize the Weld County Jail; 4. Provide hygiene supplies, including supplies to wash hands and disinfect common areas, to inmates at all times and free of charge and implement policies and procedures requiring that common areas be disinfected between uses by inmates; 5. Provide adequate personal protection equipment, including but not limited to masks, to all staff members and inmates (and ensure that these materials are replaced at least every third day);
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB Document 49-2 Filed 04/28/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
6. Implement a testing procedure to identify inmates who are possibly carrying COVID19, including testing to identify asymptomatic carriers and those with one or more symptom of COVID-19;
7. Implement a quarantine and isolation procedure that is in line with CDC guidelines for all individuals exposed to COVID-19 and new intakes to the Weld County Jail;
8. Take particularly heightened precautions with respect to food handling and delivery, such as ensuring that people who come into contact with food are not displaying any potential symptoms of COVID-19, have not recently been in contact with people displaying potential symptoms of COVID-19, and people who come into contact with food wear appropriate personal protective equipment at all times when in contact with food (including but not limited to appropriate masks and gloves); and
9. Provide accurate, up-to-date educational and informational materials regarding the status of how COVID-19 is affecting the facility, including the number of infected inmates and staff. Further, this Court holds that, in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(c), bond is
waived in this matter because the above-outlined interim relief is in the public interest. See Davis v. Mineta, 302 F.3d 1104, 1126 (10th Cir. 2002).
SO ORDERED, this ___ day of ________ 2020, at Denver, Colorado
United States District Judge
3

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 39
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Case No. 20-cv-00977-PAB THOMAS CARRANZA, JESUS MARTINEZ, RICHARD BARNUM, THOMAS LEWIS, MICHAEL WARD, COLBY PROPES, and CHAD HUNTER,
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant. _____________________________________________________________________
ORDER _____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on that portion of plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Expedited Hearing [Docket No. 1] seeking a preliminary injunction. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. I. BACKGROUND
A. Procedural History
On April 7, 2020, plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit. Docket No. 1. Plaintiffs are seven individuals who, at the time the lawsuit was filed, were held in the Weld County Jail in Weld County, Colorado, either as a pretrial detainee (Thomas Carranza, Michael Ward, Jesus Martinez, Richard Barnum, and Thomas Lewis), post-conviction and

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 39
awaiting sentencing (Colby Propes), or serving a carceral sentence (Chad Hunter). See Docket No. 7 at 7-10, ¶¶ 17-24. Plaintiffs bring two claims for unconstitutional conditions of confinement pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, one under the Eighth Amendment and one under the Fourteenth Amendment, against Steven Reams in his official capacity as the Weld County Sheriff. See id. at 25-27, ¶¶ 68-74. Both claims are brought as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, defined as the following class of individuals:
All current and future persons held at the Weld County Jail who are at high risk of complications from COVID-19 because: (a) they are age 55 or older; or (b) they have the following chronic health conditions: cancer; autoimmune disease (including lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, Sjogren’s, Crohn’s); chronic lung disease (including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchiectasis, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis or other chronic conditions associated with impaired lung function); history of cardiovascular disease; chronic arthritis; chronic liver or kidney disease; diabetes; hypertension; heart failure; HIV; on chronic steroids or other immunosuppressant medications for chronic conditions; (c) they have history of smoking or other substance abuse disorders; or (d) they are pregnant. Docket No. 7 at 24-25, ¶ 65. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for class certification. Docket No. 2. On April 7, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and expedited hearing. Docket No. 1. Plaintiffs ask that the Court order defendant to “implement a plan that will . . . ensure that [p]laintiffs are protected from the threat of COVID-19 exposure by compliance with public health
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 39
guidelines.” Id. at 5-7.1 Defendant filed a response on April 13, 2020. Docket No. 26. The next day, plaintiffs withdrew the portion of their motion seeking a temporary restraining order and asked to proceed to a hearing on the portion of their motion seeking a preliminary motion. Docket No. 29. Defendant filed a supplemental reply on April 24, 2020, Docket No. 41, and plaintiffs filed a reply on April 28, 2020. Docket No. 49. The Court also permitted limited expedited discovery. Docket No. 36.
On April 30, 2020, the Court conducted a hearing on plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion. Docket No. 52. The hearing was conducted remotely using video teleconference, with two witnesses without access to video teleconference links testifying by telephone. See Docket No. 39 at 2 (finding that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(a), good cause and compelling circumstances existed for remote testimony). The Court heard testimony from Kevin Monteiro, plaintiff Richard Barnum, Dr. Carlos Franco-Paredes, and defendant Steven Reams.2
1 Plaintiffs’ motion included an alternative request that the Court “order the transfer of a sufficient number of inmates to electronic home monitoring to allow for appropriate physical distancing within the Weld County Jail.” Docket No. 1 at 7. At the hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel stated plaintiffs were no longer seeking such relief. See also Docket No. 49-2 (plaintiffs’ revised request for relief, which makes no mention of transfer or release). Accordingly, the Court deems this request withdrawn for purposes of this motion.
2 The parties also submitted a volume of exhibits to the Court more typical of a four-day jury trial than a preliminary injunction hearing. As the Court indicated to the parties at the start of the hearing, in making these findings of fact the Court gives little weight to exhibits that, while introduced, were not discussed.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 39
B. Findings of Fact 1. The Weld County Jail
The Weld County Jail (the “Jail”) is located in Weld County, Colorado. As the elected Sheriff of Weld County, defendant oversees and operates the Jail. Defendant is the final decision maker and policy maker for both the Weld County Sheriff’s Office and the Jail.
The Jail has a capacity of 1,170 inmates. Docket No. 26-1 at 25, ¶ 112. The Jail is generally organized into “pods,” which are groups of cells surrounding common areas. See Def’s Exh. A-91. Pods have a variety of configurations. Some pods have cells that are smaller and are designed for one or two inmates; other pods have larger cells that are designed for four or more inmates. Some cells, known as “dry” cells, do not have running water or toilets, while some cells do have toilets.
As of April 29, 2020, the Jail’s population had been reduced to 478 inmates due to various depopulation efforts by the Sheriff’s Office and other entities in Weld County due to the pandemic. It is the Sheriff’s statutory responsibility to hold inmates in the Weld County Jail; he has no authority to unilaterally modify the bonds of pretrial detainees or to release inmates serving a carceral sentence. Many inmates in the Jail have had recent bond hearings, including plaintiff Richard Barnum. The state court judge denied Barnum’s request to reduce his bond.
2. COVID-19 Mitigation at the Jail COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by a novel coronavirus. See “Q&A on coronaviruses (COVID-19),” World Health Organization, Apr. 17, 2020,
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 39
https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses. Since the COVID-19 pandemic reached Colorado earlier this year, at least 971 people have died from COVID-19, and 19,703 people have tested positive for the virus. See “Case data,” Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, https://covid19.colorado.gov/case-data (last accessed May 11, 2020). Governor Jared Polis declared a state of emergency in Colorado on March 11, 2020. Executive Order D 2020 003 (March 11, 2020).
COVID-19 spreads by respiratory droplets, by direct person-to-person transmission, and by indirect surface-to-person transmission. To prevent the transmission of COVID-19, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) recommends that people wear masks in public areas where social distancing is not possible, reduce contacts with other people, wash hands frequently, and regularly clean and disinfect high-contact surfaces. Reducing contacts means both ceasing mass gatherings and practicing “social distancing” or “physical distancing” – staying six feet away from people who are not a part of your household. While COVID-19 presents some level of risk to anyone who contracts it, certain individuals – “older adults and people of any age who have serious underlying medical conditions” – are at an elevated risk of serious illness or death should they contract COVID-19. See “People Who Are at Higher Risk for Severe Illness,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/peopleat-higher-risk.html (last accessed May 8, 2020). Specifically, the CDC has identified as “high-risk for severe illness from COVID-19” people who are 65 years and older, have
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 39
chronic lung disease or moderate to severe asthma, have serious heart conditions, are immunocompromised, have severe obesity, have diabetes, have chronic kidney disease and undergoing dialysis, or have liver disease. See id. The Court uses the shorthand “medically vulnerable” to refer to persons who are in one or more of these categories.
The first “suspected positive” diagnosis of COVID-19 in the Jail occurred on March 19, 2020. Since that time, defendant has taken certain steps to reduce the spread of the virus within the Jail, including the following:
a. Intake During the booking process, new inmates meet with the Jail’s medical staff, who are employed by contractor Turn Key Health Clinics, LLC. The medical staff administers a screening tool to identify whether a new inmate has symptoms of, or has been exposed to individuals with, COVID-19. Def’s Exh. A-2. The screening tool asks whether the new inmate (1) has a fever, flu like symptoms, and a cough or shortness of breath, (2) has traveled outside the United States in the last month, and (3) has been exposed to another individual diagnosed or suspected to have COVID-19. Id. at 2. If the new inmate answers yes to any of these questions, medical staff conducts further screening of the inmate. The medical staff also gathers self-reported medical information from the inmate, but does not specifically screen for whether the inmate is medically vulnerable to COVID-19 and does not test new inmates for COVID-19. After inmates are booked into the Jail, the Jail places them into one housing unit (the “transition unit”) until the unit is full. It is unclear how many inmates go into the
6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 39
transition unit before it is determined to be full. Once full, the Jail starts a 14-day quarantine of the transition unit. In the transition unit, there is no segregation of those detainees who are medically vulnerable to COVID-19. Medical staff check inmates in the transition unit four times per day for COVID-19 symptoms.
Although the Jail has tried to get COVID-19 test kits, it has had difficulty acquiring them due to the scarcity of test kits both nationwide and within Colorado. Docket No. 26-1 at 23, ¶ 100. The Jail acquired 25 test kits at the end of March and another 100 test kits two weeks later.
b. Pods Once the inmates in the transition unit have completed the 14-day quarantine, they are moved into pods. The evidence is unclear whether the transition unit inmates are kept together as a group or whether the inmates are dispersed into other pods. The Jail has been on a 23-hour lockdown since March 31, 2020. During lockdown, inmates are confined to their cells for 23 hours per day, although individuals are let out in certain circumstances, such as if they are housed in a dry cell and need to use the bathroom. In “Pod C,” where Richard Barnum is housed, there are four inmates in his cell, which is approximately 15 feet by 12 feet. In the “trustee pod,” where Kevin Monteiro is housed, there are approximately four to five inmates per cell in each of the pod’s four cells. Within each cell, inmates sleep on bunk beds, with the top bunk approximately two feet away from the bottom bunk. As a result, it is not possible for either Barnum or Monteiro to maintain six feet of distance from his cellmates while in his cell.
7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 39
Because defendant believes that optimal social distancing policies are not attainable given the space limitations of the Jail, his plan – based on advice from the Weld County Health Department – has been to treat portions of the Jail as a “family unit.” This concept is based on the notion that individuals in households are not expected to maintain social distancing from other members of the household. It is unclear whether the Jail defines a “family unit” as a single cell, a group of cells, or an entire housing unit. While the Jail has recommended that inmates practice social distancing when out of their cells, it has not ordered them to do so. Were defendant to instead attempt to house inmates within the Jail so that each inmate could keep six feet of distance from any other inmate, the maximum capacity of the Jail, in a best-case scenario, would be 350 inmates. Generally, the occupants of several cells are allowed into the common area for an hour at the same time, so there are then as many as ten people in the pod’s common area.
The Jail employs professional janitorial staff that does some cleaning in the Jail. Additionally, certain trustee inmates are responsible for cleaning each pod’s common area during the day. However, inmates are responsible for cleaning the communal bathrooms themselves. Inmates are issued a spray called “HALT” to sanitize surfaces. Barnum and Monteiro testified that most inmates do not sanitize common areas before and after use.
The Sheriff’s Office has tried numerous avenues to acquire an adequate supply of masks for inmates. However, due to the limited supply of masks available and the demand for masks from other entities, defendant testified that the Jail has been unable
8

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 39
to procure the full amount of masks that it would like to have on hand. On March 13, the Jail placed an initial order for 50 masks for inmates who were suspected positive for COVID-19. Def’s Exh. A-8. On March 23, the Jail placed an order for 500 disposable surgical masks, intended for staff. Def’s Exh. A-26. Those surgical masks were distributed to inmates on April 9. Docket No. 41-1 at 2, ¶ 7. Barnum and Monteiro testified that the masks are flimsy and that, due to the general shortage of masks, they were forced to wear their masks for at least eight to ten days. Monteiro also testified that inmates in his pod are not wearing masks because their masks broke and the Jail has not been able to provide them with new ones.
In order to minimize the transmission of COVID-19, the Jail has changed policies and procedures for staff members. Officers are now assigned to one unit rather than rotating between units. Officers are required to check their temperature before coming to the Jail and also have their temperature checked when they report. Officers are directed to social distance as best they can from each other. Officers have been issued some disposable masks; however, they are primarily encouraged to use personal cloth masks while working in the Jail.
c. Response to Sickness The Jail does not have any policy or procedure designed to minimize the risk to medically vulnerable inmates from contracting COVID-19. Defendant has not ordered the Jail’s medical staff to develop criteria to identify inmates who are at high risk of
9

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 39
injury or death if they contract COVID-19.3 Defendant also does not have information as to how many inmates in the Jail are medically vulnerable. Defendant testified that he is aware that certain individuals are at high risk of serious illness or death should they contract COVID-19. However, in his opinion, the expanding list of medical conditions that make people “high risk” means that almost all of the inmates in the Jail are medically vulnerable.
If the Jail’s medical staff believes an inmate to be symptomatic or if an inmate tests positive for COVID-19, he is isolated for 14 days. Def’s Exh. A-92 at 3, ¶ 9(f). Dr. Franco-Paredes testified that, during both of his inspections of the Jail, inmates in the isolation unit were not single-celled. A person can come out of isolation once 14 days has elapsed and he has tested negative for COVID-19 twice. Accordingly, the Jail must have a sufficient number of test kits both to initially confirm that a person is COVID-19 positive and to confirm through two tests that he is COVID-19 negative. Any inmate who was in contact with an inmate placed in isolation is placed in quarantine. Inmates placed in quarantine are observed by the medical staff. The Jail’s policy is to maintain the quarantine for at least a 14-day period. Within the isolation unit, defendant has instituted “cohorting,” which is taking two people who have like health conditions and housing them in the same cell. According to the relevant CDC guidance, cohorting is appropriate in correctional facilities that “do not have enough individual cells” to
3 An April 22, 2020 memo from Matthew Turner to defendant states that “[w]e are working on identifying at risk inmates that should be celled alone or with minimal other people in their cells,” Docket No. 41-20, but no evidence of the results of these efforts was presented at the hearing.
10

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 39
individually isolate laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases and quarantine close contacts, and should be practiced “if there are no other available options.” See generally “Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities” at 15, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/guidancecorrectional-detention.pdf (last accessed May 8, 2020) (hereinafter “CDC Interim Guidance for Correctional Facilities”). The current policy of the Jail is to have people who are cohorting leave their cell together for purposes such as waiting in line for medication or meals.
The medical staff does not treat symptoms consistent with a common cold as being presumptively positive for COVID-19. Monteiro testified that he got very sick in March and had symptoms that included chest tightness and shortness of breath. Jail medical staff told him he had the common cold, did not isolate him, and did not test him for COVID-19. There is evidence in the record that the Jail requires an individual to display at least four symptoms of COVID-19 before he is removed from his pod. See Docket No. 1-4 at 4, ¶ 13.
3. Plaintiff Background Plaintiffs allege that they are at high risk of suffering serious medical complications or death should they contract COVID-19 due to either age, serious underlying health conditions, or both. See Docket No. 7 at 7-10, ¶¶ 17-24. Although
11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 39
some plaintiffs are no longer incarcerated in the Jail,4 plaintiff Richard Barnum has been incarcerated since October 2019. Barnum has hypertension, high blood pressure, stage three kidney disease, hepatitis C, PTSD, major depression, and liver damage. The Jail staff never asked him whether he was at a higher risk of harm should he contract COVID-19. Similarly, Jail staff never informed Barnum that he was at a higher risk of harm should he contract COVID-19. Barnum has not been offered a single cell due to his medical conditions.
Kevin Monteiro is also an inmate at the Jail. Monteiro has chronic asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Jail staff never asked him whether he was at a higher risk of harm should he contract COVID-19. Similarly, Jail staff never informed Monteiro that he was at a higher risk of harm should he contract COVID-19. Monteiro has not been offered a single cell due to his medical conditions.
4. Expert Testimony Dr. Franco-Paredes works in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and has more than 20 years of experience as an infectious disease clinician. Dr. Franco-Paredes worked on the 2003 SARS pandemic, the 2009 H5N1 influenza outbreak, the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and the current COVID-19 pandemic.5 Dr. Franco-Paredes does not have any background
4 The record is not clear as to exactly which plaintiffs remain in Jail custody. See Docket No. 26 at 38 (indicating that Michael Ward and Colby Propes had been released from the Jail); Docket No. 41 at 10 (indicating that only two plaintiffs remain in custody as of April 24, 2020).
5 Dr. Franco-Paredes offered expert opinions pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702. Defendant stipulated to Dr. Franco-Paredes’ qualifications as an expert in medicine,
12

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 39
or experience in law enforcement, public safety, or the operation of a corrections facility.
Dr. Franco-Paredes inspected the Weld County Jail on April 10 and April 24, 2020. Through these inspections, he determined there had been an outbreak of COVID-19 at the Jail before April 10. That outbreak led to the death of one inmate, Charles Peterson, who contracted COVID-19 in the Jail and died one day after he was released. Dr. Franco-Paredes wrote in his report, Pl’s Exh. 17, that, between April 10 and April 24, the leadership and staff of the Jail instituted a substantial number of interventions to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 in the Jail.
In Dr. Franco-Paredes’ opinion, based on data from those countries that are experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks, individuals who are over 55 or those who have underlying medical conditions are at higher risk of serious illness or death from COVID19. In his opinion, both Richard Barnum and Kevin Monteiro are in that medically vulnerable group due to their underlying health conditions. Dr. Franco-Paredes opined that the housing conditions for Barnum and Monteiro are not safe and that a single cell would be more appropriate for medically vulnerable individuals. Dr. Franco-Paredes criticized the surgical masks provided by the Jail, noting that although they were better than nothing, they were not fit for long-term wear. Dr. Franco-Paredes recommends that the Jail (1) identify medically vulnerable inmates, (2) provide single cells for medically vulnerable individuals during the transition period when they arrive at the Jail, (3) take steps to allow medically vulnerable inmates to socially distance
public health, and infectious disease. Docket No. 50. 13

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 39
themselves within the Jail, (4) improve cleaning techniques within the Jail; and (5) replace masks more frequently or provide cloth masks for inmates.
5. Data on the Outbreak in the Jail The parties provided the Court with data regarding the scope of the COVID-19 outbreak in Weld County Jail. Pl’s Exh. 8. As of April 29, 2020, 22 inmates had been tested for COVID-19, with ten inmates testing positive. Id. at 1. In addition, 17 Jail staff members had tested positive for COVID-19. Id. at 2. Between April 11 and 29, the number of inmates in isolation fluctuated between a high of 16 on April 16 and a low of eight on April 28. Id. at 1. On April 29, seven inmates who had tested positive for COVID-19 were in isolation, along with two additional inmates designated “suspected positive.” Id. II. LEGAL ANALYSIS – PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION To obtain a preliminary injunction, “the moving party must demonstrate four factors: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood that the movant will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in the movant’s favor; and (4) that the injunction is in the public interest.” RoDa Drilling Co. v. Siegal, 552 F.3d 1203, 1208 (10th Cir. 2009).6 Plaintiffs must make a “heightened showing of the four factors,” id., because they seek a disfavored
6 The Court need not resolve plaintiffs’ class certification motion before issuing preliminary injunctive relief. See Fish v. Kobach, 189 F. Supp. 3d 1107, 1148 (D. Kan. 2016) (“[C]ase law supports this Court’s authority to issue classwide injunctive relief based on its general equity powers before deciding the class certification motion.”); see also Newberg on Class Actions § 4:30 (5th ed. Dec. 2019 update) (“[A] court may issue a preliminary injunction in class suits prior to a ruling on the merits.”).
14

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 39
mandatory injunction – their requests for relief would “alter the status quo” by requiring defendant to take affirmative actions. Schrier v. Univ. of Colo., 427 F.3d 1253, 1260 (10th Cir. 2005); see also Free the Nipple-Fort Collins v. City of Fort Collins, Colo., 916 F.3d 792, 797 (10th Cir. 2019) (holding that plaintiff must make a “strong showing” in order to obtain an injunction that “mandates action”). The Court addresses each factor in turn.
A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits As noted earlier, plaintiffs bring two claims for unconstitutional conditions of confinement against defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, one under the Eighth Amendment and one under the Fourteenth Amendment. Both claims are asserted against Sheriff Reams in his official capacity.7
1. Municipal Liability A suit against a government officer in his official capacity is a suit against the entity of which an officer is an agent. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985). A local governing body may be sued under § 1983 only where “the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers.”
7 Defendant contends that plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claim is moot because both plaintiffs bringing that claim have been released from the Jail. See Docket No. 41 at 10. However, both of plaintiffs’ claims are brought on behalf of the same putative class. See Docket No. 7 at 24-25, ¶ 65 (seeking certification of a class of “[a]ll current and future persons held at the Weld County Jail who are at high risk of complications from COVID-19 . . .”). There is no need to distinguish the two claims for the purpose of determining whether injunctive relief is warranted. Because defendant does not argue that plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment claim is moot, the Court need not resolve whether their Eighth Amendment claim is moot.
15

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 39
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). The three elements of a Monell claim are “(1) official policy or custom, (2) causation, and (3) state of mind.” Schneider v. City of Grand Junction Police Dep't, 717 F.3d 760, 769 (10th Cir. 2013).
Defendant argues that Weld County cannot be subject to municipal liability for plaintiffs’ deliberate indifference claim. Docket No. 26 at 23-27. The argument is misplaced. First, regarding an official policy or custom, defendant ignores that an official’s actions can give rise to municipal liability “where the decisionmaker possesses final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the action ordered.” Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 482-83 (1986); see also Schneider, 717 F.3d at 770 (noting that “a final decision by a municipal policy maker” may be “deemed an official policy or custom”). Plaintiffs allege that defendant “is a final policymaker for Weld County with respect to the customs, policies, and practices of its jail.” Docket No. 7 at 10, ¶ 25. Defendant agrees. At the preliminary injunction hearing, defendant testified that he is the final decision maker and policy maker for both the Weld County Sheriff’s Office and the Jail. See also Docket No. 26-1 at 2, ¶ 5 (defendant’s statement that he was “personally involved in . . . approving” protocols and processes implemented by the Weld County Sheriff’s Office). Thus, defendant has final policymaking authority with respect to the Jail such that his actions establish an “official policy or custom” that plaintiffs may challenge. Similarly, plaintiffs have adequately alleged that defendant’s challenged policies are “closely related to” the alleged violation of plaintiffs’ Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. See Schneider, 767 F.3d at 770; see also Docket No. 7 at 22-23, ¶ 59 (alleging that the Jail is “not taking
16

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 39
adequate precautions to protect vulnerable people or to quarantine people with symptoms”). Finally, the relevant state of mind for a municipal liability claim is “deliberate indifference” – “an objective standard which is satisfied if the risk is so obvious that the official should have known of it.” See Barney v. Pulsipher, 143 F.3d 1299, 1307 n.5 (10th Cir. 1998); Schneider, 717 F.3d at 771.8 Plaintiffs adequately allege that the transmission of COVID-19 and the heightened danger that such transmission poses to the plaintiff class in the Weld County Jail is such a risk. See, e.g., Docket No. 7 at 18, ¶ 43 (alleging that “public health guidance put all sheriffs on notice of the dire risk of the spread of COVID-19 through jails without substantial changes to the jail environment”). At the hearing, defendant testified that he was aware that COVID-19 presented both a general risk to all inmates in the Jail and a heightened risk to members of the plaintiff class. In fact, defendant does not contest, for the purposes of this motion, that COVID-19 satisfies the Eighth Amendment objective standard for deliberate indifference. See Docket No. 26 at 29. Thus, the Court rejects defendant’s argument that the complaint fails to establish a municipal liability claim against Weld County.
2. Eighth Amendment Claim “A prison official’s ‘deliberate indifference’ to a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate violates the Eighth Amendment.” See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828
8 This deliberate indifference standard, which applies to municipal liability, is different from the deliberate indifference standard for an Eighth Amendment claim. See Barney, 143 F.3d at 1307 n.5 (“Deliberate indifference . . . is defined differently for Eighth Amendment and municipal liability purposes.”).
17

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 39
(1994); see also Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993) (“The [Eighth]
Amendment . . . requires that inmates be furnished with the basic human needs, one of
which is ‘reasonable safety.’” (citing DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Social
Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 199 (1989))).9 “The analysis [of an Eighth Amendment claim]
should not be based on ‘a court’s idea of how best to operate a detention facility,’” but
should reflect “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing
society,” which the Tenth Circuit has characterized as a “lofty standard.” DeSpain v.
Uphoff, 264 F.3d 965, 973-74 (10th Cir. 2001) (citing Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S.
337, 351 (1981)). To prevail on the claim that defendant violated the Eighth
Amendment, plaintiffs must show that (1) objectively, the harm they complain of is
9 Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claim is brought on behalf of “persons in carceral custody,” while their Fourteenth Amendment claim is brought on behalf of pretrial detainees. See Docket No. 7 at 25-27. Although pretrial detainees are protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Eighth Amendment, in the Tenth Circuit courts apply “an analysis identical to that applied in Eighth Amendment cases” in determining whether a pretrial detainee’s rights were violated at the time he was assaulted. Lopez v. LeMaster, 172 F.3d 756, 759 n.2 (10th Cir. 1999). Plaintiffs contend that Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015), which held that “the appropriate standard for a pretrial detainee’s excessive force claim is solely an objective one,” changed the standard for pretrial detainees making deliberate indifference claims. Docket No. 1 at 32-33 n.62. The circuit courts have split on the applicability of Kingsley to the medical-care context. See Miranda v. Cty. of Lake, 900 F.3d 335, 352 (7th Cir. 2018) (joining the Second and Ninth Circuits in concluding that “medical-care claims brought by pretrial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment are subject only to the objective unreasonableness inquiry” but acknowledging that the Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have confined Kingsley to the excessive-force context). The Tenth Circuit has declined to rule definitively on the issue. See Burke v. Regalado, 935 F. 3d 960, 991 n.9 (10th Cir. 2019); Perry v. Durborow, 892 F.3d 1116, 1122 n.1 (10th Cir. 2018). Because the Court finds that plaintiffs have satisfied their burden under the Eighth Amendment standard, which is more favorable to defendant, the Court need not resolve this dispute. See Burke, 935 F.3d at 991 n.9 (noting that the Eighth Amendment standard is more favorable to a defendant).
18

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 39
sufficiently “serious” to merit constitutional protection, and (2) defendant was subjectively aware of a substantial risk to plaintiffs’ health or safety and acted in purposeful disregard of that risk. Martinez v. Beggs, 563 F.3d 1082, 1088 (10th Cir. 2009).
In evaluating the objective factor, courts “look to whether the harm suffered rises to a level ‘sufficiently serious’ to be cognizable under the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause.” Mata v. Saiz, 427 F.3d 745 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834). COVID-19 is a potentially deadly disease that has led to unprecedented measures around the world to stop its spread. While COVID-19 presents some risk of harm to all individuals, the record indicates that members of the plaintiff class face a elevated risk of illness or death should they contract it. See Docket No. 1-1 at 6; Docket No. 1-2 at 3. Defendant conceded that plaintiffs have satisfied the objective factor of the deliberate indifference test. See Docket No. 26 at 29. Moreover, he testified at the preliminary injunction hearing that he is aware of the heightened risk of harm that COVID-19 presents to members of the plaintiff class. Thus, the Court finds that the objective factor is satisfied and focuses its analysis on the subjective factor.
“[P]rison officials who actually knew of a substantial risk to inmate health or safety may be found free from liability if they respond[] reasonably to the risk.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844. COVID-19 poses some risk of harm to any individual. That risk can be thought of as the probability that an individual will contract the virus multiplied by the probability of experiencing serious illness or death from having contracted it. The first variable – the risk of contracting the virus – is within defendant’s capacity to control,
19

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 39
while the second variable – the risk of serious illness or death from contracting the virus – is largely not. Rather, members of the plaintiff class have a higher risk of serious illness or death because they are over 55 years of age or have underlying health conditions.
As noted earlier, by the time of the hearing, defendant had taken several steps to reduce the risk that inmates will contract COVID-19 in the Jail. These include (1) an isolation and quarantine procedure for individuals who are presumed positive for COVID-19 and for individuals who came in contact with presumptive positive inmates, (2) a procedure for quarantining new inmates as they enter the Jail, (3) keeping inmates in “family units” after being quarantined, and (4) locking down the Jail for 23 hours at a time. Defendant has also provided inmates with masks and cleaning supplies, and there is some evidence that inmates are able to socially distance in the hour they spend out of their cell each day. Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Franco-Paredes, noted after his second inspection of the Jail on April 24 that Jail leadership had instituted a substantial number of interventions to mitigate the impact of COVID-19. Indeed, plaintiffs withdrew their initial request for a temporary restraining order on the basis of interventions made by defendant throughout the first two weeks of April. As a result of these interventions, the data before the Court is that, in the month of April, COVID-19 transmission within the Jail has trended downward, with nine inmates isolated as of April 29. See Pl’s Exh. 8.
However, the record indicates that defendant has not instituted any specific precautions to protect medically vulnerable inmates. As discussed earlier, these
20

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 39
inmates – older individuals and those with certain underlying health conditions – have an elevated risk of serious illness or death should they contract COVID-19. Defendant testified at the preliminary injunction hearing that he is aware that COVID-19 presents a higher risk of harm to these individuals. Despite knowing of that elevated risk, defendant has not ordered the Jail’s medical staff to identify those inmates who are medically vulnerable to COVID-19. As a result, defendant is not aware of how many inmates within the Jail are medically vulnerable, and he does not know which inmates those are.
Although defendant has not made any effort to identify medically vulnerable inmates, he may still be “found free from liability if [he] responded reasonably to the risk” presented to them. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844. The reasonableness of the Jail’s response as to non-vulnerable inmates is not before the Court at this time, as they are excluded from the plaintiff class. Assuming arguendo that the Jail’s COVID-19 mitigation efforts were reasonable as to the risk posed to non-vulnerable inmates, the Court considers whether the mitigation efforts were reasonable with respect to medically vulnerable inmates.
a. Social Distancing A jail’s ability to facilitate proper social distancing is limited, both by the jail’s population and its physical layout. Defendant testified that, in order to provide six feet of spacing with optimal use of cells, the Jail would have to reduce the inmate population to 350 inmates. See also Docket No. 26-1 at 25, ¶ 112. As defendant testified, he does not have the authority to reduce the inmate population. However,
21

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 39
defendant has not tried to formulate a plan that would optimize social distancing for medically vulnerable inmates. As a result, medically vulnerable inmates like Monteiro and Barnum are confined in cells in which it is impossible for them to maintain six feet of distance from their cellmates. Importantly, defendant has not identified any impediment to formulating such a plan. Rather, defendant testified that, as a general matter, social distancing is not possible for medically vulnerable inmates while housed in the Jail. Given that the ability to provide medically vulnerable inmates with the opportunity for social distancing is largely a function of how much cell space is available to them, the Court is unsure how defendant could reach this conclusion without understanding how many inmates are in the medically vulnerable group. It is clear to the Court that defendant has the ability to determine a number of possible approaches to increase social distancing within cells and outside of them for the medically vulnerable, just as he did when considering the application of a six-foot social distancing requirement to all inmates.10 While the Court does not know whether, for a fact, it is possible to achieve substantially improved social distancing for plaintiffs while simultaneously protecting other inmates, that information is uniquely in defendant’s possession. See Docket No. 41 at 5 n.5 (providing the Court with “representative” pod diagrams but stating that disclosure of “the overall floor plan or layout” of the Jail “could
10 Defendant acknowledges that he has no impediment to formulating housing plans to better protect inmates from exposure to COVID-19: “The [Weld County Sheriff’s Office] has also continually assessed how best to house inmates within the physical limitations of the [Jail].” Docket No. 41 at 5.
22

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 39
create a security risk”).11 Courts have ordered jails to enact social distancing measures
during this pandemic. See, e.g., Jones v. Wolf, 2020 WL 1643857, at *14 (W.D.N.Y.
Apr. 2, 2020) (granting temporary restraining order where, because the detention
facility was at “roughly half of its capacity,” it “remain[ed] plausible that” defendants
could provide vulnerable individuals within the facility “with a living situation that
facilitates ‘social distancing’”). The Court concludes that defendant’s social distancing
efforts with respect to medically vulnerable inmates has not been reasonable.12
b. Family Groups
The record before the Court does not indicate that the Jail’s policies with regard
to family groups are clearly or consistently implemented. It is unclear whether the Jail
11 In his supplemental response, defendant states that “none of [the plaintiffs] were included in [a] list of inmates [Jail] medical staff identified as high risk for dangers from COVID-19.” See Docket No. 41 at 11. The exhibits cited by defendant in support of this statement do not describe such a list of inmates or explain how such list was developed. See Def’s Exhs. B-22, B-25. Moreover, this statement, if true, raises more questions than it answers. Plaintiff Richard Barnum testified that he has high blood pressure, stage three kidney disease, hepatitis C, PTSD, major depression, and liver damage. Despite those medical conditions, Jail medical staff has apparently not identified him as a medically vulnerable inmate. The Court is thus not convinced, even if the Jail is taking some measures to identify medically vulnerable inmates, that those measures are accurate or adequate and that its criteria are based on acceptable public health agency guidelines. See “People Who Are at Higher Risk for Severe Illness,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (medically vulnerable people include those who are immunocompromised, with chronic kidney disease undergoing dialysis, and with liver disease).
12 The CDC offers a variety of strategies to provide social distancing in correctional facilities and gives guidance that jails should implement strategies “tailored to the individual space in the facility and the needs of the popul ation and staff.” See CDC Interim Guidance for Correctional Facilities at 11. The evidence does not suggest that defendant’s social distancing strategy in the Jail is tailored to the physical space and population of the Jail.
23

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 39
treats a single cell, a group of cells, or an entire pod as a family group. It is also unclear whether family groups are a mix of medically vulnerable and non-vulnerable inmates, a consequence of the Jail’s lack of data on its inmate population. However, as Dr. Franco-Paredes noted, even a biological family living in a house would take extra precautions to protect an aged or infirm member of the household.
While both the CDC and Dr. Franco-Paredes recommend social distancing first and foremost, where proper distance cannot be fully achieved the use of family groups – medically vulnerable inmates who have shown no signs of COVID-19 for 14 days and who are kept together for the purposes of being cellmates and using common areas – may be an appropriate supplemental strategy.
c. Sanitation The Jail maintains that it is providing adequate sanitation and cleaning supplies to inmates. Based on the somewhat vague testimony as to sanitation of pods offered at the hearing, it appears that the Jail employs professional janitors to clean parts of the Jail during the evening, has trustee cleaning of common areas in pods during the day, and gives inmates additional responsibility for cleaning common areas, such as toilets and showers, before and after use with HALT spray. Defendant identifies no impediment to providing heightened sanitation to the medically vulnerable.13 The Court finds that implementing (1) cleaning of surfaces in the common area before medically
13 The CDC recommends that frequently touched surfaces are cleaned and disinfected several times per day, and that Jails should “[c]onsider increasing the number of staff and/or [inmates] trained and responsible for cleaning common areas to ensure continual cleaning of these areas throughout the day.” See CDC Interim Guidance for Correctional Facilities at 9.
24

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 39
vulnerable inmates or family groups are released to that area and (2) more frequent professional or trustee cleaning of toilets and sinks (in addition to the current practice of having cleaning supplies available in these areas) would help minimize medically vulnerable inmates’ risk of contracting the virus while being feasible and practical for the Jail.
d. Monitoring Defendant has instituted monitoring practices in the transition and isolation units. Inmates in the transition unit are checked four times per day for COVID-19 symptoms. Similarly, inmates in the isolation unit are regularly observed by the medical staff. There appear to be no impediments to extending some kind of enhanced monitoring to medically vulnerable inmates who are not housed in either the transition or isolation unit.
e. Intake The current intake process appears to present a danger to medically vulnerable inmates. While new inmates provide a medical history and are screened for COVID-19 symptoms before being placed in the transition unit, the record indicates that medically vulnerable inmates are not single-celled or otherwise segregated in the transition unit as more inmates are placed in the unit. As a result, defendant’s policy appears to expose medically vulnerable inmates to an elevated risk of contracting COVID-19 during the intake process. Because of these deficiencies in defendant’s response to COVID-19, the Court is persuaded on the record before it that plaintiffs have shown a substantial likelihood
25

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 39
of success of proving that defendant has acted i n purposeful disregard of the elevated risk of harm that COVID-19 presents to members of the plaintiff class.14
B. Irreparable Harm
“[A] showing of probable irreparable harm is the single most important
prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.” DTC Energy Group, Inc. v.
Hirschfeld, 912 F.3d 1263, 1270 (10th Cir. 2018) (quoting First W. Capital Mgmt. Co. v.
Malamed, 874 F.3d 1136, 1141 (10th Cir. 2017)). The moving party “must demonstrate
a significant risk that he or she will experience harm that cannot be compensated after
the fact by money damages.” Fish v. Kobach, 840 F.3d 710, 751 (10th Cir. 2016).
The Court determines that plaintiffs have shown a significant risk of probable
irreparable harm. The fact that plaintiffs are exposed to some risk of contracting
COVID-19, however small, is probably not sufficient to prove irreparable harm, even
though they are more vulnerable. For example, if plaintiffs were released, they would
still suffer some risk of exposure in the community. However, the plaintiffs who are
14 The cases cited by defendant in his most recent notice of supplemental authority are not on point. See Docket No. 54. Broadly speaking, courts in these cases concluded that prison officials’ response to COVID-19 was not deliberately indifferent. See Money v. Pritzker, 2020 WL 1820660, at *18 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2020) (no deliberate indifference where record indicated that defendants had not “turned . . . [a] blind eye and deaf ear to a known problem”); Mays v. Dart, 2020 WL 1987007, at *25, (N.D. Ill. Apr. 27, 2020) (granting preliminary injunction under Fourteenth Amendment standard but noting, in dicta, that the Sheriff had “been anything but deliberately indifferent to the risk of harm” from COVID-19); Valentine v. Collier, _ F.3d __, 2020 WL 1934431, at *4 (5th Cir. Apr. 22, 2020) (staying injunction where the district court applied the incorrect legal standard for deliberate indifference claims). Deliberate indifference claims, however, are “intensely fact-based.” See Valentine, 2020 WL 1934431, at *9 (Higginson, J., concurring in the judgment). On these facts, the Court is satisfied that plaintiffs have shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their deliberate indifference claim.
26

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 39
confined are not only confined in close quarters, but some inmates in the Jail have already contracted COVID-19. See Docket No. 26-1 at 26, ¶ 114 (defendant’s declaration that at least ten inmates have tested positive for COVID-19). Although defendant argues that the decreasing number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in the Jail indicate that plaintiffs do not have a risk of irreparable harm, see Docket No. 41 at 11, defendant does not deny that some inmates are still in isolation after contracting COVID-19 in the Jail, and aysmptomatic staff and new inmates present an ongoing possibility of additional sources of infection. The Jail is taking the preventative measures it is currently taking because of the real risk of COVID-19 exposure to inmates.
C. Balance of Equities The Court finds that the balance of equities weighs in plaintiffs’ favor. The record indicates that plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff class face a high risk of serious illness or death if they contract COVID-19 while in the Weld County Jail. This outweighs the harms identified by the defendant, which include “maintaining control over the [Jail] without Court supervision” and the costs of complying with plaintiffs’ proposed preliminary injunction. See Docket No. 26 at 33-35. Although the Court acknowledges defendant’s interest in retaining discretion to administer the Jail, “[c]ourts may not allow constitutional violations to continue simply because a remedy would involve intrusion into the realm of prison administration.” Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 511 (2011).
27

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 39
D. Public Interest The Court finds that entering a preliminary injunction would further the public interest in two ways. First, “it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights,” as a preliminary injunction would do here. See Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111, 1132 (10th Cir. 2012). Moreover, the Court agrees with plaintiffs that minimizing the exposure of inmates with pre-existing vulnerabilities furthers public health, which is a matter of public interest. See, e.g., Castillo v. Barr, 2020 WL 1502864, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2020) (noting that “[t]he public has a critical interest in preventing the further spread of the coronavirus”); Banks v. Booth, 2020 WL 1914896, at *12 (D.D.C. Apr. 19, 2020) (observing that “[n]o man’s health is an island”). Defendant argues that a preliminary injunction would unreasonably threaten public safety, pointing at length to plaintiffs’ arrest records and raising the specter of the Court “overrid[ing] public safety decisions made by Colorado state court judges.” See Docket No. 26 at 35-39. However, as mentioned earlier, plaintiffs have withdrawn any request for an order that would release or transfer prisoners from the Jail. Thus, this argument fails to show that a preliminary injunction would be adverse to the public interest. In sum, the Court is satisfied that plaintiffs have made a heightened showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, that they will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a temporary restraining order, and that the balance of equities and public interest tips in their favor. See RoDa Drilling, 552 F.3d at 1208. Thus, plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction.
28

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 39
III. INJUNCTION Having determined that plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction, the
Court turns to the appropriate scope of the injunction. Rule 65(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires every order
granting an injunction or restraining order to “(A) state the reasons why it issued; (B) state its terms specifically; and (C) describe in reasonable detail – and not by referring to the complaint or other document – the act or acts restrained or required.” Additionally, because this is a civil action related to prison conditions, the Court must also consider the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3626, a portion of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.15 Section 3626(a)(2) requires that preliminary injunctive relief be “narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm.” Further, the Court must “give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the preliminary relief.” Id. Finally, any preliminary injunctive relief that “requires . . . a government official to exceed his or her authority under State or local law” may only be issued upon a finding that “(i) Federal law requires such relief to be ordered in violation of State or local law;
15 This statute extends to relief requested by pretrial detainees. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(3) (defining “prisoner” as, among other things, “any person subject to incarceration . . . who is accused of . . . violations of criminal law”). Similarly, the Weld County Jail is a “prison” within the meaning of the statute. See id. § 3626(g)(5) (defining “prison” as, among other things, any “local facility that incarcerates or detains [individuals] accused of . . . violations of criminal law”).
29

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 39
(ii) the relief is necessary to correct the violation of a Federal right; and (iii) no other relief will correct the violation of the Federal right.” Id. § 3626(a)(1)(B).
The Court evaluates plaintiffs’ requested injunction as set out in Docket No. 492.16
A. Social Distancing and Identification of Medically Vulnerable Inmates Plaintiffs request that the Court order defendant to “[p]hysically distance all inmates from one another and staff within the Weld County Jail.” Docket No. 49-2 at 3, ¶ 1. Relatedly, plaintiffs request an order for defendant to “[i]dentify inmates at highrisk . . . from COVID-19 . . . and physically distance these individuals particularly.” Id., ¶ 2. As discussed previously, the record indicates that defendant has taken no steps to identify those inmates who are medically vulnerable and to prioritize them for single cells or other housing situations where they can properly socially distance themselves. Accordingly, the Court will order defendant to identify those individuals who are, according to the CDC guidelines, at a high risk of serious illness or death from COVID19. See “People Who Are at Higher Risk for Severe Illness,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (identifying people as medically vulnerable who are 65 years and older, have chronic lung disease or moderate to severe asthma, have serious heart conditions, are immunocompromised, have severe obesity, have diabetes, have chronic kidney disease and are undergoing dialysis, or have liver disease).
16 While plaintiffs’ overarching goal for injunctive relief has been consistent – “ensur[ing] that [p]laintiffs are protected from the threat of COVID-19 exposure” while held within Weld County Jail, see Docket No. 1 at 5-6 – the exact scope of plaintiffs’ requested relief has shifted over the course of this case. Compare id. at 6-7 with Docket No. 49-2 at 3-4.
30

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 31 of 39
Once these individuals have been identified, defendant is ordered to put in place a plan to enhance the general steps already taken in the Jail in order to better protect these medically vulnerable individuals. The plan should include taking steps to socially distance these individuals within the Jail, to the extent practicable given the Jail’s physical layout and population level. The Court recognizes that, due to the lack of data as to how many medically vulnerable inmates are in the Jail, it is currently unclear to what extent these inmates can be socially distanced. However, the record indicates that, while it is not possible for all inmates to socially distance according to CDC guidelines given the Jail’s current population level, the Jail is well below half of its maximum capacity, indicating that there is space within the Jail to increase the amount of physical distancing for at least some inmates.
Defendant is ordered to consider whether, as part of his plan to minimize the risk of transmission to medically vulnerable inmates, such inmates should be moved to one or more pods made up solely of medically vulnerable inmates. As Monteiro testified, some inmates are not taking precautions available to them, such as wearing masks or disinfecting common areas.17 The Jail can consider, based on its own observations, whether medically vulnerable inmates are more likely to take precautions for their own
17 Defendant raised the absurd specter of having to Taser inmates to enforce social distancing. See Docket No. 26 at 8. W hile jails have limited means to make all inmates wear masks and follow social distancing directives, any plan must take into account the risk to medically vulnerable inmates from non-compliant inmates, utilizing common sense (e.g. using family groupings or staggering release of individual cells) as a touchstone.
31

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 32 of 39
safety and are thus likely to be safer in an environment consisting only of medically vulnerable inmates.
B. Sanitation and Hygiene Plaintiffs request an order for defendant to “professionally disinfect and sanitize” the Jail and to “[p]rovide hygiene supplies . . . to inmates at all times.” Docket No. 49-2 at 3, ¶¶ 3-4. Plaintiffs concede in their reply that at least some of this relief has been partially implemented. See Docket No. 49 at 5 (noting that “hygiene products have been provided to inmates”). Further, defendant testified at the hearing about the steps the Jail has taken to sanitize, which include making both cleaning supplies and personal hygiene supplies available to inmates. However, the record also indicates that the current sanitation procedures are inadequate to protect medically vulnerable inmates, as inmates are not consistently sanitizing common areas and the Jail does not have either janitorial staff or trustees cleaning common areas several times a day, as recommended by CDC guidelines. Accordingly, the Court will order the Jail to implement a policy to improve sanitation for toilets, sinks, and common areas used by medically vulnerable inmates, either by increasing the use of professional cleaning staff or by increasing the frequency with which pods are cleaned by trained trustees. C. Personal Protective Equipment Plaintiffs request that the Court order defendant to “[p]rovide adequate personal protection equipment . . . to all staff members and inmates.” Docket No. 49-2 at 3, ¶ 5. Plaintiffs have not introduced evidence regarding personal protective equipment other than masks, so that is what the Court will focus on. The record regarding masks is
32

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 33 of 39
concerning. Both Monteiro and Barnum testified that they had been wearing Jailprovided surgical face masks for far longer than the recommended three days.18 Dr. Franco-Paredes criticized the surgical masks given to inmates as unfit for long-term wear. Defendant testified that, due to supply chain issues and competition with other entities in Weld County that need masks, the Jail has been unable to get the full amount of masks that it needs. However, the Jail’s efforts to obtain masks have focused on staff, not inmates. Thus, the defendant is ordered to formulate a plan to obtain a sufficient number or type of masks for inmates so that they may be used properly.
D. Quarantine and Isolation Procedure Plaintiffs request that defendant be ordered to “[i]mplement a testing procedure to identify inmates who are possibly carrying COVID-19” and “a quarantine and isolation procedure that is in line with CDC guidelines for all individuals exposed to COVID-19 and new intakes to the Weld County Jail.” Docket No. 49-2 at 4, ¶ 6-7. The Court is not persuaded that the record supports such relief. As for testing, it is not clear from the record that the Jail has the quantity of test kits necessary to implement a wideranging testing procedure or that the Jail can acquire a sufficient number of test kits. As for the quarantine procedure, defendant testified that inmates in the Jail who are symptomatic or test positive for COVID-19 are isolated for 14 days, and that such a practice is consistent with the CDC guidelines. Plaintiffs argue in their reply that this
18 Defendant has recognized the need for Jail staff to be able to rotate their masks for decontamination purposes. See Docket No. 41 at 4.
33

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 34 of 39
practice is unreasonable because it focuses only on symptomatic inmates. Plaintiffs, however, do not explain how the current procedure is inconsistent with the CDC guidelines or otherwise unreasonable. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated an entitlement to injunctive relief on this issue.
Nevertheless, the Court agrees with plaintiffs that injunctive relief is needed for new intakes into the Jail. Defendant testified that new inmates are placed into a designated housing unit until that unit is “full,” at which point the Jail starts a 14-day clock before those individuals are introduced to the general population. The Jail complies with the CDC recommendation for new inmates generally. See CDC Interim Guidance for Correctional Facilities at 14 (recommending that, if possible, jails quarantine all new inmates for 14 days). However, the Jail places more than one inmate in a cell in the transition unit, and there is no evidence that new inmates are given a COVID-19 test. See id. at 4 (noting that, ideally, “each quarantined individual would be quarantined in a single cell”). As a result, the intake procedure may expose medical vulnerable inmates to other inmates in the transition unit who may be infected with COVID-19. There does not appear to be any impediment to coordinating increased social distancing of medically vulnerable inmates in the transition unit with the Jail’s plan to increase social distancing once an inmate leaves the transition unit.
E. Food Handling and Delivery Plaintiffs request that the Court order defendant to “[t]ake particularly heightened precautions with respect to food handling and delivery.” Docket No. 49-2 at 4, ¶ 8. However, plaintiffs offer no evidence that COVID-19 is transmissible via food or that the
34

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 35 of 39
Jail’s current food handling and sanitation procedures are inadequate. See “Food Safety,” https://www.usda.gov/coronavirus (last accessed May 7, 2020) (noting that the USDA is “not aware of any reports at this time of human illnesses that suggest COVID19 can be transmitted by food”).
F. Educational and Informational Materials Finally, plaintiffs request that the Court order defendant to “[p]rovide accurate, up-to-date educational and informational materials” about COVID-19’s effect on the facility. Docket No. 49-2 at 4, ¶ 9. However, there is evidence in the record that defendant is providing some informational materials within the Jail. See, e.g., Def’s Exh. A-38; Docket No. 26-1 at 20-21, ¶¶ 84, 87. Accordingly, interim injunctive relief in this area does not appear necessary in order to mitigate the risk of harm to members of the plaintiff class. G. Security Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c), “[t]he court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” A trial court has “wide discretion under Rule 65(c) in determining whether to require security.” Winnebago Tribe of Neb. v. Stovall, 341 F.3d 1202, 1206 (10th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted). Plaintiffs argue that the Court should waive the security requirement. Docket No. 1 at 52. Defendant
35

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 36 of 39
argues that the Court should order that plaintiffs post a security of $1,000,000. Docket No. 41 at 12-13.19
The Court agrees with plaintiffs. First, plaintiffs represent that they are indigent. See Docket No. 1 at 52. The pretrial detainees are in the Jail because they are unable to post bond. Indigent plaintiffs “ordinarily should not be required to post a bond under Rule 65(c).” See Bass v. Richardson, 338 F. Supp. 478, 490 (S.D.N.Y. 1971); see also 11A Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 2954 (noting that Bass “seems correct and has been followed by other courts”). Second, the Tenth Circuit has indicated that “a minimal bond amount should be considered” in cases where a party is seeking to vindicate a public interest. See Davis v. Mineta, 302 F.3d 1104, 1126 (10th Cir. 2002), abrogated on other grounds by Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Env't v. Jewell, 839 F.3d 1276 (10th Cir. 2016). Finally, the Court is not persuaded that compliance with this order will cause significant damages to defendant while this order is in effect. There is no evidence in the record indicating that cost is an obstacle to social distancing or instituting increased sanitation measures in the Jail. Thus, the Court will waive the security requirement. IV. CONCLUSION
The COVID-19 pandemic presents a nearly unprecedented challenge to every person and institution in our society, and the Court acknowledges that defendant faces
19 Defendant initially requested a security of $500,000, a figure obtained by multiplying half of the daily net operating cost of the Jail by the 14 days that a temporary restraining order would be in effect. See Docket No. 26 at 39 n.13. As defendant conceded in his brief, the Court finds that ordering indigent plaintiffs to post substantial security based on the daily operating cost of the entire jail – not the cost of complying with any injunctive relief – would be “harsh.” See id.
36

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 37 of 39
difficult considerations in how best to respond. However, “[p]rison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution.” Turner v. Safley, 483 U.S. 78, 84 (1987). The record indicates that defendant has failed to take adequate measures to protect members of the plaintiff class from COVID-19 given that they face a heightened risk of serious illness or death from the virus. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ conditions of confinement violate the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, and plaintiffs are entitled to a limited preliminary injunction to ameliorate those conditions.
Such an injunction has no adverse effect on public safety, does not have more than a minimal adverse effect on the operation of the criminal justice system, is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the harm the Court finds requires preliminary relief, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).
Therefore, it is ORDERED that the portion of plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Expedited Hearing [Docket No. 1] seeking a preliminary injunction is GRANTED IN PART. It is further ORDERED that, on or before May 18, 2020, at 5:00 p.m., defendant shall certify to the Court that he has compiled a list of those persons (“medically vulnerable inmates”) currently held at the Weld County Jail who have one or more of the following conditions: are 65 years and older, have chronic lung disease or moderate to severe asthma, have serious heart conditions, are immunocompromised, have severe obesity,
37

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 38 of 39
have diabetes, have chronic kidney disease and undergoing dialysis, or have liver disease. Defendant shall provide to the Court and plaintiffs a list of medically vulnerable inmates by inmate number, identifying for each what risk categories the inmate has and explaining what process he used to identify medically vulnerable inmates. It is further
ORDERED that, on or before May 21, 2020, at 5:00 p.m., defendant is ordered to institute the following policies or procedures in the Weld County Jail:
(1) A policy ensuring that, to the maximum extent possible considering the Jail’s physical layout, population level, and classification needs, medically vulnerable inmates are “socially distanced” from other inmates housed in the Jail. If social distancing is effectively impossible for some or all of the medically vulnerable inmates in the Jail, such policy may be supplemented by housing medically vulnerable inmates together in one or more pods.
(2) A procedure, as part of the intake of new inmates into the Jail, for medically vulnerable inmates to be single-celled or otherwise socially distanced, to the maximum extent possible considering the Jail’s physical layout and classification needs, while housed in the transition unit.
(3) A policy of enhanced sanitation procedures in areas where medically vulnerable inmates are housed. This may include expanded use of professional cleaning services of the Jail and/or increasing the frequency with which trustees clean common areas in non-trustee pods. Such policy should be compliant with the CDC guidelines for cleaning and disinfecting practices.
38

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH Document 55 Filed 05/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 39 of 39

(4) A plan to obtain a sufficient number or type of masks so that inmates do not need to wear them for more than their intended duration or so that inmates may be able to clean them.
(5) A policy providing for increased monitoring of medically vulnerable inmates for symptoms of COVID-19.
It is further ORDERED that, on or before May 21, 2020, at 5:00 p.m., defendant is ordered to file a report with the Court, identifying what new policies have been instituted in accordance with this order. Defendant shall explain in such report what steps the Jail has taken to acquire an adequate mask supply for inmates housed in the Jail. It is further ORDERED that this order will expire in 90 days unless extended by the Court. It is further ORDERED that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c), plaintiffs will not be required to post a bond for the reasons discussed in this order. It is further ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is otherwise denied.

DATED May 11, 2020.

BY THE COURT:

PHILIP A. BRIMMER Chief United States District Judge
39

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 15
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC THOMAS CARRANZA; JESUS MARTINEZ; RICHARD BARNUM; THOMAS LEWIS; MICHAEL WARD; COLBY PROPES; and CHAD HUNTER,
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF COMPLETE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS COURT’S PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER [ECF 55]
Defendant Sheriff Steven Reams (“Sheriff”), by and through his counsel, Matthew J. Hegarty, Esq., Andrew D. Ringel, Esq., and John F. Peters, Esq., of Hall & Evans, L.L.C., hereby respectfully submits this Notice of Complete Compliance with this Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order [ECF 55], as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION On May 11, 2020, this Court issued its Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. [ECF 55]. This Court granted Plaintiffs “a limited preliminary injunction” focused on this Court’s definition of “medically vulnerable” inmates constituting some of the Plaintiffs. In its Order, this Court directed the Sheriff to

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 15
implement six policies at the WCJ by May 18, 2020, and May 21, 2020. This submission provides this Court with the Sheriff’s complete compliance with this Court’s Order.1
II. COMPLETE COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER OF MAY 11, 2020 A. Identification of “Medically Vulnerable” Inmates by Inmate Number: Initially, this Court “ORDERED that, on or before May 18, 2020, at 5:00 p.m., defendant shall certify to the Court that he has compiled a list of those persons (“medically vulnerable inmates”) currently held at the Weld County Jail who have one or more of the following conditions: are 65 years and older, have chronic lung disease or moderate to severe asthma, have serious heart conditions, are immunocompromised, have severe obesity, have diabetes, have chronic kidney disease and undergoing dialysis, or have liver disease. Defendant shall provide to the Court and plaintiffs a list of medically vulnerable inmates by inmate number, identifying for each what risk categories the inmate has and explaining what process he used to identify medically vulnerable inmates.” [See ECF 55, at 37-38]. As outlined in the attached Second Supplemental Declaration of Captain Matthew Turner and Declaration of Undersheriff Donald Patch, the Weld County Sheriff’s Office (“WCSO”) and the Weld County Jail (“WCJ”) in consultation with WCJ contracted medical provider Turn Key Health Clinics, Inc. (“TKHC”) engaged in a comprehensive effort to identify those “medically vulnerable” inmates in the WCJ pursuant to the criteria provided by this Court. [See Second Supplemental Decl. of Captain Matthew Turner (“Turner 2d
1 The Sheriff’s Submission should not be construed as his agreement with this Court’s Order or a waiver of his right to appeal the Order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 15
Supp. Decl.”), ¶¶ 8-24, Exh. F; Decl. of Undersheriff Donald Patch (“Patch Decl.”), ¶¶ 824, Exh. G]. All inmates housed within the WCJ on May 13, 2020, were interviewed by TKHC medical staff. Initially, the questioning of all inmates began with the following verbal statement: “Hi, we are conducting a screening of all patients in the facility to determine if you are considered medically vulnerable to COVID-19.” Next, all inmates were asked if they are 65 years of age or older. Finally, all inmates were asked if they had any of the following chronic health conditions: chronic lung disease or moderate to severe asthma; serious heart conditions; immunocompromised; severe obesity; diabetes; chronic kidney disease and undergoing dialysis; or liver disease. [See Turner 2d Supp. Decl., Exh. F, ¶ 19; Patch Decl., Exh. G, ¶ 17]. And any inmate arriving at the WCJ following the completion of this screening through 8:00 AM on May 18, 2020 (the latest time the report could be run in time to meet this Court’s deadline of 5:00 PM today) was also asked the same questions with the same introduction of the question being related to being “medically vulnerable” to COVID-19 as defined by the Court. [See Turner 2d Supp. Decl., Exh. F, ¶ 22; Patch Decl., Exh. G, ¶ 20]. The responses were compiled and then provided to this Court along with this submission. The data reveals a total of 89 inmates presently in the WCJ who are “medically vulnerable inmates” based on the definition adopted by this Court. These inmates represent less than 20% of the WCJ’s total inmate population current as of 8:00 AM May 18, 2020.2
2 For purposes of comparison, the TKHC medical staff also asked every current and incoming inmate through 8:00 AM on May 18, 2020, screening questions to determine whether they qualified as a “medically vulnerable inmate” based on the definition advocated by the Plaintiffs in this litigation. [See Turner 2d Supp. Decl., Exh. F, ¶ 18; Patch Decl., Exh. G, ¶ 16]. Plaintiffs’ definition of “medically vulnerable” inmates
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 15
All “medically vulnerable” inmates as defined by this Court will continue to be
tracked by the WCSO in the WCJ jail management system. [See Turner 2d Supp. Decl.,
Exh. F, ¶¶ 11-12; Patch Decl., Exh. G, ¶¶ 10-11]. All new arrivals at the WCJ will be
screened during the book-in process under the same protocol to ascertain whether they
are “medically vulnerable” inmates. [See Turner 2d Supp. Decl., Exh. F, ¶¶ 11-12; Patch
Decl., Exh. G, ¶¶ 10-11].
B. Social Distancing of “Medically Vulnerable” Inmates: Next, this Court “Ordered that, on or before by May 21, 2020, at 5:00 p.m.,
defendant is ordered to institute the following policies or procedures in the Weld County
Jail: (1) A policy ensuring that, to the maximum extent possible considering the Jail’s
physical layout, population level, and classification needs, medically vulnerable inmates
are ‘socially distanced’ from other inmates housed in the Jail. If social distancing is
was considerably broader than the definition adopted by this Court and included all inmates 55 years of age or older and also included many more chronic health conditions. [See Turner 2d Supp. Decl., Exh. F, ¶¶ 18, 20; Patch Decl., Exh. G, ¶¶ 16, 18]. The responses were compiled and have been provided to this Court along with this submission. The data reveals a total of 390 of 450 inmates presently in the WCJ who are “medically vulnerable” inmates based on the expansive definition advocated by Plaintiffs and rejected by this Court. [See Turner 2d Supp. Decl., Exh. F, ¶ X]. Plaintiffs’ “medically vulnerable” inmate definition represents approximately 87% of the total current inmate population at the WCJ, approximately 4.25 times greater than the “medically vulnerable” inmate definition adopted by this Court. [See Turner 2d Supp. Decl., Exh. F, ¶¶ 20, 24, 25; Patch Decl., Exh. G, ¶ 18]. These findings are consistent with the WCJ’s prior analysis of the issue and conclusion that almost everyone then in custody of the WCJ fit Plaintiffs’ broad definition of “medically vulnerable” inmates. [See Turner 2d Supp. Decl., Exh. F, ¶ 20, 24, 25; Patch Decl., Exh. G, ¶ 18]. As articulated during the April 30, 2020, hearing before this Court, the Sheriff’s, the WCSO’s, and the WCJ’s efforts to address COVID-19 at the WCJ therefore necessarily focused on all the inmates rather than a subset of “medically vulnerable” inmates, particularly given the fluctuation of the number of “medically vulnerable” inmates based on entries and exits from the WCJ daily.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 15
effectively impossible for some or all of the medically vulnerable inmates in the Jail, such
policy may be supplemented by housing medically vulnerable inmates together in one or
more pods.” [ECF 55, at 38].
The WCSO analyzed and assessed the issue of socially distancing “medically
vulnerable inmates” and arrived at the following policy:
In light of the importance the Court assigned to social distancing of “medically vulnerable” inmates as defined by the Court (the definition used in this paragraph and all subsequent paragraphs) from all inmates who did not qualify as such, and considering the WCJ’s physical layout, population level, and classification needs: the “medically vulnerable” inmates will remain in their current cohorted “family units” to the extent they are cohorted only with other “medically vulnerable” inmates in those cells; the WCJ will treat “medically vulnerable” inmates as a Special Management population with in the WCJ; all housing units presently containing “medical vulnerable” inmates will go on modified lockdown protocol; the WCJ will stagger period release of “medically vulnerable” inmates and cohorts for their “hour out” under this modified lockdown protocol, so “medically vulnerable” inmates are not out at the same time as inmates who are not “medically vulnerable” inmates, and only in groups of no more than 10 total persons (exclusive of jail staff, e.g., up to 9 inmates and 9 Detentions Division Deputy); and to the limited extent inmates who are not “medically vulnerable” currently are in a cell with those who are “medically vulnerable,” the WCJ will move the inmates who are not “medically vulnerable” out of those cells and will reassign them as appropriate throughout the WCJ and in consideration of both Covid-19 and non-Covid 19 factors which affect where inmates can be housed in the WCJ to the maximum extent possible.
[See Supplemental Decl. of Sheriff Steven Reams (“Sheriff Supp. Decl.”), ¶ 15, Exh. H].
As outlined in detail in the Supplemental Declaration of Sheriff Steven Reams, in
arriving at this policy, the WCSO took into account all applicable factors with regard to
how the WCJ must make individual inmate housing decisions. Those factors include the
COVID-19-related factors as well as all non-COVID-19-related classification factors. [See
Sheriff Supp. Decl., Exh. H, ¶ 16]. Specifically, regardless of the COVID-19 pandemic,
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 15
the WCJ is required to make classification decisions for purposes of housing all inmates
based on all of the many individualized factors relevant and appropriate to such decisions.
[See Sheriff Supp. Decl., Exh. H, ¶ 16]. General classification issues are required to be
considered related to this issue. [See Sheriff Supp. Decl., Exh. H, ¶ 16]. Moreover,
considerations of the physical space available to the WCJ to house “medically vulnerable”
inmates provided a significant constraint on the ability to single-cell such inmates. [See
Sheriff Supp. Decl., Exh. H, ¶ 16]. Finally, the WCSO had significant concerns about
moving “medically vulnerable” inmates from current living arrangements because of the
potential for spreading COVID-19 based on the movement of inmates alone. The Sheriff
describes the decision-making of the WCSO in this regard, as follows:
e. Presently 89 WCJ inmates are “medically vulnerable,” but unfortunately they are completely spread out amongst almost every custody level in the WCJ, in both male and female populations, with a variety of criminal charges, and both convicted individuals and pretrial detainees.
f. Even in the event the WCJ inmate population reaches a low enough number to allow the WCJ to realign its inmate housing situation such that even half of the “medically vulnerable” inmates could be singlecelled, several points of consideration create grave concerns and counsel strongly against doing so:
i. Single-celling all “medically vulnerable” inmates will negatively impact non-“medically vulnerable” inmates exponentially as an increased number of non-“medically vulnerable” inmates would have to be celled together, necessitating the “mixing” of inmates and the creation of new “family units” which of course potentially increases the risk of transmission of COVID-19.
ii. Although the Court made allowance that, if social distancing is effectively impossible for some or all “medically vulnerable” inmates in the WCJ, such policy may be supplemented by housing “medically vulnerable” inmates together in one or more pods, we are concerned this will not be workable either. Our concern is because of what I will call the “nursing home effect”. That is, should a “medically
6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 15
vulnerable” inmate contract COVID-19 in such a situation, that inmate would be in close proximity to all “medically vulnerable” inmates in the WCJ, thus undoing what the Court presumably was trying to accomplish by means of this allowance, and the risk of spreading COVID-19 to other “medically vulnerable” inmates would be much too great. I read news reports indicating that, in April 2020, in a residential, non-hospital care nursing home facility in Greeley, 14 residents died due to an outbreak, and similar outbreaks were seen in facilities like these across Colorado and throughout the United States.
iii. Moreover, mass movement, reallocation, and dispersal of inmates from their current locations within the WCJ to new locations within the WCJ would be extremely disruptive to the safety and security of the WCJ, its inmates, and my Detentions Division staff. This is true both because of the potential increased spread of COVID-19 from such movement and intermingling of prior “family units,” but also because of the general safety and security considerations involved in wholesale movement of inmates in a jail setting.
[See Sheriff Supp. Decl., Exh. H, ¶ 16]. The new WCSO social distancing policy for “medically vulnerable” inmates is the
most efficacious policy tailored to the physical layout, population level, and classification needs of the WCJ and an appropriate response to specific COVID-19 concerns of moving inmates to different cohorts and “family units” yet keeping social distancing for everyone as much as possible given such factors. [See Sheriff Supp. Decl., Exh. H, ¶¶ 16-17].
C. Intake of “Medically Vulnerable” Inmates: In addition, this Court “Ordered that, on or before by May 21, 2020, at 5:00 p.m.,
defendant is ordered to institute the following policies or procedures in the Weld County
Jail: ... “(2) A procedure, as part of the intake of new inmates into the Jail, for medically
vulnerable inmates to be singled-celled or otherwise socially distanced, to the maximum
7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 15
extent possible considering the Jail’s physical layout and classification needs, while
housed in the transition unit.” [ECF 55, at 38].
The WCSO analyzed the issue of addressing “medically vulnerable” inmates arriving in booking and intake at the WCJ and determined the following policy was appropriate considering all relevant factors:
To the maximum extent possible considering the WCJ’s physical layout, population level, and classification needs, “medically vulnerable” inmates as defined by the Court who are admitted to WCJ’s intake/transition units must be housed in a cell within such unit alone and away from other inmates. If it is not possible to house a “medically vulnerable” inmate alone in a cell within an intake/transition unit due to the WCJ’s physical layout, population level, and classification needs, that inmate must be housed in a cell within an intake/transition unit with no more than one other inmate, which inmate must also be “medically vulnerable,” in accordance with cohorting practices the CDC specifically outlines and endorses. If, despite this allowance, it still is not possible to house a “medically vulnerable” inmate either alone or with only one other “medically vulnerable” inmate in a cell within an intake/transition unit due to the WCJ’s physical layout, population level, and classification needs, and no other option is apparent, Detentions Division Deputies must contact a Shift Sergeant for guidance immediately.
[See Sheriff Supp. Decl., Exh. H, ¶ 19]. The Sheriff explained the process by which the WCSO arrived at this policy in his Supplemental Declaration. [See Sheriff Supp. Decl., Exh. H, ¶¶ 20-21].
D. Enhanced Sanitation Procedures for “Medically Vulnerable” Inmates: Further, this Court “Ordered that, on or before by May 21, 2020, at 5:00 p.m.,
defendant is ordered to institute the following policies or procedures in the Weld County
Jail: ... “(3) A policy of enhanced sanitation procedures in areas where medically
vulnerable inmates are housed. This may include expanded use of professional cleaning
services of the Jail and/or increasing the frequency with which trustees clean common
8

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 15
areas in non-trustee pods. Such policy should be compliant with CDC guidelines for
cleaning and disinfecting practices.” [ECF 55, at 38].
Following an assessment and analysis of all relevant factors, the WCSO
determined the following policy was necessary and appropriate:
Detentions Division staff, and not existing professional cleaning staff or inmate Trustees, will conduct enhanced sanitation of housing units housing “medically vulnerable” inmates as defined by the Court. Prior to “medically vulnerable” inmates entering any common area, Detentions Division staff will spray HALT disinfectant spray on all surfaces in the common area open for use by “medically vulnerable” inmates allowing 10 minutes of contact time for complete disinfection to occur before “medically vulnerable” inmates enter. Common areas will be limited in size for “medically vulnerable” inmates (to half the typical common area) to ensure complete cleaning of phones, tables, handrails, bathroom facilities, sinks, toilets, and other similar common-area equipment inmates use regularly. “Medically vulnerable” inmates will be encouraged to practice social distancing continuously, to disinfect any commonly used equipment on their way out and their way in, and to increase their own cleaning practices to include frequent hand washing and personal sanitation. “Medically vulnerable” inmates who willfully refuse to adhere to recommended practices to prevent the spread of COVID-19 despite such encouragements will be noted in the WCJ records management system. Whenever possible, “medically vulnerable” inmates will be housed in cells giving them immediate access to bathroom facilities (wet cell) within limits of the WCJ’s physical layout, population level, and objective classification requirements. Personal hygiene supplies and HALT disinfectant spray bottles will continue to remain available to all inmates, inclusive of “medically vulnerable” inmates, without cost. In the event the WCJ inmate population reaches a low enough threshold that “medically vulnerable” inmates can be further distanced from non-“medically vulnerable” inmates, when considering the WCJ’s physical layout, population level, and objective classification requirements, then every effort will be taken to do so while maintaining such objective classification. If it becomes possible or appropriate to do so, despite the concerns outlined above, units housing only “medically vulnerable” inmates will be attempted, with particular emphasis on ensuring that movement to this type of housing authorization can be done on more than just a “short term” basis. Limiting movement from one housing unit to another to ensure prevention of cross-contamination from one population to another population is consistent with the WCJ’s strong desire to ensure the health and safety of all involved. Increased supplies of HALT disinfectant spray
9

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 15
have been obtained and increased mask orders have been placed, yet increased professional cleaning services may be required to augment what Detentions Division staff will be doing if this COVID-19 pandemic continues past the next 90 days.
[See Sheriff Supp. Decl., Exh. H, ¶ 23]. The Sheriff explained in detail why Detentions Division Deputies will need to be utilized for this cleaning protocol because of the lack of the availability of resources of either inmate Trustees or professional cleaning staff for this purpose. [See Sheriff Supp. Decl., Exh. H, ¶¶ 24-25].
E. Obtaining Additional Inmate Masks: Moreover, this Court “Ordered that, on or before by May 21, 2020, at 5:00 p.m.,
defendant is ordered to institute the following policies or procedures in the Weld County
Jail: ... (4) A plan to obtain a sufficient number or type of masks so that inmates do not
need to wear them for more than their intended duration or so that inmates may be able
to clean them. ... Defendant shall explain in such report what steps the Jail has taken to
acquire an adequate mask supply for inmates housed in the Jail.” [ECF 55, at 39].
The WCSO has already implemented the following plan for obtaining additional
surgical and cloth masks for all inmates in the WCJ:
SURGICAL MASKS: On April 24, 2020, my Office placed an order via the Weld County Office of Emergency Management (“OEM”) for 1,000 surgical/procedure masks specifically for inmate use. Then, on April 28, 2020, my Office received 750 surgical/procedure masks of the 1,000 it ordered. On May 5, 2020, my Office placed a second order via OEM for an additional 1,000 surgical/procedure masks, again specifically for inmate use. Then, on May 8, 2020, my Office received all 1,000 of these surgical/procedure masks it ordered. On May 12, 2020, my Office placed a third “standing order” via OEM for 1,200 surgical/procedure masks, once again specifically for inmate use, which assuming it can be satisfied will provide a sufficient supply of such masks to reissue WCJ inmates new masks every 72 hours. Since this is a “standing order,” the supply of 1,200 masks will sustain for approximately one week, then be replenished as
10

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 15
scheduled for resubmission on a weekly basis. This “standing order” via OEM will remain in place until an adequate supply of reusable cloth masks can be obtained.
CLOTH MASKS: In addition, after several days of searching, my Office identified two vendors to obtain reusable cloth masks, both of which have an estimated turn‐around time of early June 2020 to deliver them. On May 13, 2020, my Office placed an order with both vendors, for 3,400 masks total and specifically for inmate use, which will ensure a ready supply to provide each inmate with two cloth masks and also will afford enough time to order a resupply if needed to ensure an available stock of masks. My Office also obtained information from the Colorado Department of Corrections (“CDOC”) concerning a new program administered by the CDOC and the Office of Governor Jared Polis to provide reusable cloth masks to county detention facilities like the WCJ. To my knowledge, my Office was the first county detention facility in the State of Colorado to apply for such masks under this program, and on May 14, 2020, we applied for 1,600 reusable cloth masks, once again specifically for inmate use. However, we have not yet received any confirmation on whether or when those particular reusable cloth masks will be delivered as of the time of the completion of this Declaration.
[See Sheriff Supp. Decl., Exh. H, ¶ 27]. The Sheriff explained the process by which the
WCSO arrived at this plan in his Supplemental Declaration. [See Sheriff Supp. Decl., Exh.
H, ¶ 28].
F. Increased Monitoring of Symptoms for “Medically Vulnerable” Inmates:
Finally, this Court Ordered that, on or before by May 21, 2020, at 5:00 p.m.,
defendant is ordered to institute the following policies or procedures in the Weld County
Jail: ... (5) A policy providing for increased monitoring of medically vulnerable inmates for
symptoms of Covid-19.” [ECF 55, at 39].
Application of all relevant factors after analysis has led the WCSO to adopt the
following policy concerning increased monitoring of symptoms for “medically vulnerable”
inmates:
11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 15
The WCJ medical staff, who are TKHC personnel, will perform four “daily checks” on inmates who are classified as “medically vulnerable” as defined by the Court These daily checks will consist of full symptom screenings according to the attached second updated screening protocol [which I understand also to be Exh. F-2 to Captain Turner’s Second Supplemental Declaration, as may be further enhanced by TKHC in the future] combined with temperature checks. These measures for the “medically vulnerable” inmates will be in addition to the daily checks and monitoring of non“medically vulnerable” inmates which already were occurring well prior to April 30, 2020. [See Sheriff Supp. Decl., Exh. H, ¶ 30]. In his Supplemental Declaration, the Sheriff explained in detail how the WCSO arrived at this policy and the specific factors relevant to the policy including monitoring requirements mandated by the Colorado Department of Corrections, Community Corrections, and Colorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo. [See Sheriff Supp. Decl., Exh. H, ¶ 31].
III. ARGUMENT Since the date this Court issued its Order partially granting the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and otherwise denying that Motion, the WCSO has worked very hard to assess and implement this Court’s Order in the six areas outlined above. All considerations leading to the policies and plans adopted by the WCSO in compliance with this Court’s Order are outlined in detail in the Declarations provided to this Court and their attachments. The Sheriff and the WCSO strongly believe they have done what is possible and achievable in adopting these policies based on all relevant and applicable factors, both COVID-19-related and non-COVID-19-related, including the WCJ’s physical layout, its population level, and the classification needs of every single inmate in the WCJ. The WCJ has done and continues to do what it is able to do to address all issues related to COVID-19 including inmate separation within the confines of the physical plant
12

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 15
of the WCJ and considering the daily fluctuations in the WCJ’s inmate population level along with all objective individual classification needs relating to all WCJ inmates. The WCSO continues to work on these issues every day seeking guidance from all available sources and continuing to refine all applicable policies and protocols based on any new guidance disseminated from any of the many sources relied upon by the WCSO. Every day during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Sheriff, his leadership team, and all WCSO employees have worked extremely hard and to their best of their individual and collective abilities to ensure all WCJ inmates, all staff who work at the WCJ, and all individuals who interact at the WCJ remain as safe and healthy as possible based on the information the WCSO knows and is continuing to gather at regular intervals about COVID-19 and its transmission and spread. This has been the overarching mission of the WCJ since before any outbreak began within the WCJ and will continue to be its mission as long as the pandemic continues. [See Sheriff Supp. Decl., Exh. H, ¶ X]. This will continue to be true despite the significant financial costs to the WCJ (and thus Weld County taxpayers) of the WCJ’s substantial operational modifications and the WCSO’s implementation of robust policies and procedures designed to combat COVID-19. [See Patch Decl., Exh. G, ¶¶ 2528]. This will continue to be true also despite the leveling off of confirmed COVID-19 cases within the WCJ. [See Turner 2d Supp. Decl., Exh. F, ¶¶ 26-28].
Based on this Submission and its attachments, the Sheriff respectfully requests this Court conclude the Sheriff, the WCSO, and the WCJ (who share a unity of interest with the Sheriff due to the official-capacity-only nature of this lawsuit) have complied completely with the terms of this Court’s Order dated May 11, 2020.
13

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 15
IV. CONCLUSION In conclusion, based on the foregoing explanation and on all attachments to this Submission, Defendant Steven Reams, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity, respectfully requests this Court enter an Order: concluding the Defendant, along with the Weld County Sheriff’s Office and the Weld County Jail, have complied completely with the terms of this Court’s Order dated May 11, 2020; and granting all other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.
Dated this 18th day of May, 2020. Respectfully submitted, s/Matthew J.Hegarty Matthew J. Hegarty, Esq. Andrew D. Ringel, Esq. John F. Peters, Esq. of HALL & EVANS, LLC 1001 17th Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 T: (303) 628-3300 F: (303) 628-3368 hegartym@hallevans.com ringela@hallevans.com petersj@hallevans.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
14

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 15

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF)

I hereby certify that on this 18th day of May, 2020, a true and correct copy of this DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF COMPLETE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS COURT’S PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER [ECF 55] was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court which will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses:

Darold W. Killmer David A. Lane Andrew Joseph McNulty Michael Paul Fairhurst KILLMER LANE & NEWMAN LLP dkillmer@kln-law.com dlane@kln-law.com amcnulty@kln-law.com mfairhurst@kln-law.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Thomas Carranza, Jesus Martinez, Michael Ward, Colby Propes, and Chad Hunter

David George Maxted MAXTED LAW LLC dave@maxtedlaw.com
Jamie Hughes Hubbard STIMSON STANCIL LABRANCHE HUBBARD LLC hubbard@sslhlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Thomas Carranza, Jesus Martinez, Michael Ward, Colby Propes, and Chad Hunter

Daniel David Williams Lauren Elizabeth Groth HUTCHINSON BLACK & COOK, LLC williams@hbcboulder.com groth@hbcboulder.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Richard Barnum and Thomas Lewis

Mark Silverstein Rebecca Teitelbaum Wallace Sara R. Neel AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNIONDENVER msilverstein@aclu-co.org rtwallace@aclu-co.org sneel@aclu-co.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs Richard Barnum and Thomas Lewis

s/Marlene Wilson, Legal Assistant to Matthew J. Hegarty, Esq. Andrew D. Ringel, Esq. John F. Peters, Esq. of HALL & EVANS, LLC 1001 17th Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 T: (303) 628-3300 F: (303) 628-3368 petersj@hallevans.com hegartym@hallevans.com ringela@hallevans.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

15

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-1 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

EXHIBIT F

Civil Action No. 20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC

THOMAS CARRANZA; JESUS MARTINEZ; RICHARD BARNUM; THOMAS LEWIS; MICHAEL WARD; COLBY PROPES; and CHAD HUNTER,

Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons,

v.

STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,

Defendant.

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF CAPTAIN MATTHEW TURNER

I, Captain Matthew Turner, being of lawful age and duly sworn under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, and for my Second Supplemental Declaration in the above-captioned case (“Declaration”), hereby declare as follows:
1. I have personal knowledge of the matters in this Declaration. 2. I currently serve as the Jail Captain for the Weld County Jail (“WCJ”) in the County of Weld, State of Colorado. I have served in this position for five months. 3. Before beginning my tenure as the WCSO Jail Captain on January 1, 2020, I was employed with the Weld County Sheriff’s Office (“WCSO”) for eight (8) prior years and served in many positions: Corrections Officer (what is now called Detentions Deputy) and separately earned my Peace Officer Standards Training (“POST”) certification; Public

1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-1 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 10
Information Officer Corporal; Detentions Division Shift Sergeant; Civil Unit Sergeant in charge of civil service processors, animal control, and victim advocates; and Detentions Division Lieutenant. Of my eight years working for the WCSO, I have spent a total of 5.5 years working in the WCJ.
4. I also earned an Associate of Arts degree in education from Front Range Community College in 2011 with a future goal to attain a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice from the University of Northern Colorado.
5. I am individually familiar with the protocols and processes the WCSO as a whole generated, implemented, and refined in response to the global, national, and local public health threat posed by the novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”) from February 27, 2020, through today, because I was personally involved in generating, implementing, refining, and approving all protocols and processes in consultation with a team of WCSO staff and local public health officials. All protocols and processes outlined in Sheriff Steven Reams’ Declaration dated April 13, 2020, remains in effect today. All protocols and processes outlined in my Supplemental Declaration dated April 24, 2020, also remain in effect today.
6. I am further individually familiar with the protocols and processes the WCSO as a whole has generated, implemented, and refined from April 24, 2020, to date in continued consultation with the WCJ’s medical services vendor Turn Key Health Clinics (“TKHC”), as well as the Weld County Health Department (“WCHD”), both of which the WCSO has consulted extensively. These additional protocols and processes have included a first updated screening tool which was finalized and started to be implemented during the book-in process on April 28, 2020 [Exh. F-1], which corresponded with the
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-1 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 10
CDC’s change in the list of COVID-19 symptoms a person may exhibit and which included both this updated screening form as augmented by WCJ medical and an update by the WCJ to the flyers posted in housing units. These additional protocols and processes also included a second updated screening tool which was finalized and started to be implemented during the book-in process as well on May 13, 2020 [Exh. F-2].
7. I am moreover individually familiar with the protocols and processes the WCSO as a whole has generated, implemented, and refined following the entry of the District Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF 55] in the above-captioned case, which I have read in its entirety.
SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL STEPS WCSO TOOK TO COMBAT COVID-19, IN CONSULTATION WITH WCJ’S MEDICAL SERVICES PROVIDER, FROM MAY 11,
2020, TO PRESENT 8. ECF 55 was entered in the afternoon hours of May 11, 2020. 9. On May 12, 2020, the WCSO consulted with TKHC, its medical services vendor, to plan to interview all inmates and pretrial detainees (collectively “inmates” herein) then in custody at the WCJ, whether in general population housing units or in the intake/transition housing units, to ascertain whether they were “medically vulnerable” regarding COVID-19 under the limited criteria set forth by this Court. 10. In furtherance of making such an interview process functionally possible and accomplished as expeditiously as possible, the WCJ’s Health Services Administrator arranged for approximately 35 nurses to be on station at the WCJ on May 13, 2020. This represented a significant increase in the typical number of nurses who are scheduled to work based on the WCJ’s contract with TKHC, usually 10 nurses on any given day.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-1 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 10
11. Also in furtherance of making such an interview process functionally possible and accomplished in as expeditious a manner as possible, TKHC developed a third updated screening tool to use specifically during this process [Exh. F-3].
12. As of May 13, 2020, this detailed screening tool will now be a standard part of the booking process for new arrivals to the WCJ, along with the first updated screening tool, until the COVID-19 pandemic resolves at some unknown future date, subject to further refinement as needed and in consultation with TKHC [see Exh. F-1 and F-2].
13. It is important to understand prior to the implementation of this new standard, while the WCJ had not yet performed a simultaneous COVID-19-specific assessment of the medical conditions of all WCJ inmates, the WCJ had performed a quite similar assessment of medical conditions of WCJ inmates as needed on an individualized basis, and specifically when housing units were combined to make room for more intake/transition units so the WCSO could house, to the best of its ability, those inmates who might be more susceptible to COVID-19 given the physical-plant limitations of the WCJ and also given classification criteria which needed to be taken into account.
14. Just after 8:00 AM May 13, 2020, the WCJ and its augmented staff of nurses from TKHC began performing this facility-wide screening of WCJ inmates to ascertain whether they were “medically vulnerable” regarding COVID-19 under the limited criteria set forth by this Court and this process continued until about 3:00 PM that day.
15. All 462 inmates then in custody in the WCJ on May 13, 2020 were interviewed. 16. During the interview process, WCJ medical staff asked all inmates a series of questions preceded by a verbal statement, which for the sake of consistency was read
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-1 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 10
word-for-word to all inmates before the questions began, and that verbal statement was: “Hi, we are conducting a screening of all patients in the facility to determine if you are considered medically vulnerable to COVID 19.”
17. All inmates were asked two categories of questions. 18. First, inmates were asked questions relating to the expansive definition of “medically vulnerable” as proposed by the Plaintiffs in this case, which the Court rejected. An inmate who verbally answered “yes” to any of the following questions was marked as MV55 in the WCJ jail management system:
a. Are you 55 years of age or older? b. Do you have any of the following chronic health conditions: Cancer;
Autoimmune disease (including lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, Sjogren’s, or Crohn’s); Chronic lung disease (including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchiectasis, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, or other chronic condition associated with impaired lung function); History of cardiovascular disease; Chronic arthritis; Chronic liver or kidney disease; Diabetes; Hypertension; Heart failure; HIV; On chronic steroids or other immunosuppressant medications for chronic conditions; History of smoking or substance abuse disorder; or Pregnancy? 19. Second, all inmates also were asked questions relating to the more limited definition of “medically vulnerable” adopted by this Court. An inmate who verbally answered “yes” to any of the following questions was marked as MV65 in the WCJ jail management system:
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-1 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 10
a. Are you 65 years of age or older? b. Do you have any of the following chronic health conditions: Chronic lung
disease or moderate to severe asthma; Serious heart conditions; immunocompromised; Severe obesity; Diabetes; Chronic kidney disease and undergoing dialysis; or Liver disease? 20. As of May 13, 2020, the number of inmates then within the WCJ verbally answering “yes” to the set of questions derived from this Court’s definition of “medically vulnerable” (19% of the WCJ population) was approximately 4.25 times fewer than the number of inmates verbally answering “yes” to the set of questions derived from Plaintiffs’ expansive definition of “medically vulnerable” (almost 83% of the WCJ population). These findings are consistent with the WCJ’s prior analysis of the issue that almost everyone then in the custody of the WCJ fit Plaintiffs’ definition of “medically vulnerable,” and the WCSO’s earlier decisionmaking processes thus revolved around treating essentially the entire WCJ inmate population as “medically vulnerable” under Plaintiffs’ definition. 21. After this data was collected, each form was reviewed to ensure the inmates who gave affirmative verbal responses to the various sets of questions was appropriately marked in the WCJ jail management system, allowing the WCSO to print a roster by inmate number and risk category as now provided to this Court. [Exh. F-4]. 22. All inmates who entered the custody of the WCJ from after 3:00 PM on May 13, 2020, to 8:00 AM on May 18, 2020, were asked the same two sets of questions, consistent with the WCJ’s adoption of these questions into its pre-booking screening protocol. Their responses also are included in the information provided in Exh. F-4.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-1 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 10
23. To date, the information provided verbally by inmates on May 13, 2020, and from 3:00 PM on May 13, 2020, to 8:00 AM on May 18, 2020, has not been verified independently by WCJ medical staff, as the time required to do this would exceed the May 18, 2020, 5:00 PM MDT deadline to respond to the Court. However, this verification process will take place this next week, as it will be necessary to ensure WCJ compliance with the additional directive of increased monitoring of medically vulnerable inmates.
24. As of 8:00 AM this morning (the latest the report could be run in time to submit everything to the Court by its 5:00 PM deadline), under the Court’s limited definition of “medically vulnerable,” the WCJ housed 89 “medically vulnerable” inmates out of 450 total inmates then housed by the WCJ (less than 20% of Jail population), which (although the raw number is much the same as May 13, 2020) did encompass both slight decreases due to a small number of inmates who left WCJ custody for a variety of reasons (including but not limited to transfers to the Colorado Department of Corrections and short-term inmates housed at the WCJ only for a matter of days), as well as slight increases due to a small number of new arrestees the WCJ received since 3:00 PM on May 13, 2020, all of whom currently are housed in the WCJ’s intake/transition units according to Policy #2 which I understand was submitted to the Court today in the Supplemental Declaration of Sheriff Steven Reams.
25. But under Plaintiffs’ expansive and judicially-rejected definition of “medically vulnerable”, as of 8:00 AM this morning there were 390 inmates out of 450 total inmates then housed by the WCJ (86.67% of Jail population) who would have been treated as “medically vulnerable” under said definition, which (again) is consistent with the WCJ’s
7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-1 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 10
prior analysis of the issue that almost everyone then in the custody of the WCJ fit Plaintiffs’ definition of “medically vulnerable,” and the WCSO’s earlier decisionmaking processes thus revolved around treating essentially the entire WCJ inmate population as “medically vulnerable” under Plaintiffs’ definition.
DAILY DATA RESPECTING VARIOUS COVID-19-RELATED STATUSES OF WCJ INMATES AND STAFF FROM MAY 1, 2020 TO MAY 18, 2020
26. Further, it is important to provide the Court with additional context to show the efficacy of the WCSO’s extensive and comprehensive measures at the WCJ to slow, stop, combat, and further guard against any additional spread of COVID-19 in the WCJ.
27. I believed it prudent to at least go back and pull information relating to the data points previously presented at the preliminary injunction hearing yet attributable to April 30, 2020 until May 17, 2020. I now furnish that information to the Court. [Exh. F-5].
28. Review of this information reveals despite the passage of almost three more weeks since the April 30, 2020, preliminary injunction hearing, the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in the WCJ has leveled off, and the plans implemented on April 1, 2020, still are in effect today and still are capable of effectively reacting to COVID-19.
29. I understand the Court already is aware of the Sheriff’s Declaration submitted on April 13, 2020, in this case, which detailed for the Court the limits on the physical plant of the WCJ given the statutory and state court judicial requirements under which the Sheriff and his command staff and deputies labor to do their best to keep inmates safe.
30. I also understand the Court is aware of the Sheriff’s Declaration concerning the fact the Sheriff does not possess any legal authority to modify or revoke these pretrial detainees’ bonds which are set by the state court judge presiding over their individual
8

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-1 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 10
cases, and the fact the Sheriff possesses no legal authority to permit any of these inmates to serve their pretrial period at home or any other detention facility other than the WCJ as any such decision would have to be made by the state court judge.
31. Despite these limitations which are a necessary consequence of Colorado’s state court judicial system and criminal justice statutory regime, the WCJ has continued to work to attempt to single-cell inmates wherever and whenever possible while still maintaining best practices for anti-transmission of communicable disease and addressing all of the custody issues, classification issues, and other specific issues which must be taken into consideration in any housing placement of all inmates in the WCJ.
32. The situation as it existed on April 24, 2020, as detailed in my Supplemental Declaration, is particularly relevant in light of the average housing unit space as detailed above, which even given the passage of more than three more weeks still is not enough to maintain six feet of distance between all inmates at all times within the WCJ.
33. As of today, the WCJ currently houses 450 inmates. As previously articulated, the Sheriff lacks the legal authority to release any of the inmates currently detained.
34. The WCSO and the WCJ have done and continue to do what we are able to do to address all issues related to COVID-19 including inmate separation within the confines of the physical plant of the WCJ and the number of inmates at the WCJ. The WCSO and the WCJ continue to work on these issues every day seeking guidance from all available sources and continuing to refine all applicable policies and protocols based on any new guidance disseminated from any of the many sources relied upon. Every day during this pandemic, I have worked extremely hard to ensure to the best of my ability all
9

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-1 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 10
inmates at the WCJ, all staff who work there, and all individuals who interact at the WCJ remain as safe as possible based on all the information I know about COVID-19 and its transmission and spread. That has been the mission of the WCJ since the outbreak began and will continue to be as long as it continues. Finally, as before, the last thing the WCSO desires is to be compelled to adopt measures which completely undermine the effective steps the WCSO has taken to plan for, slow, stop, and further guard against the spread of COVID-19.
I understand the statements written in this Declaration are given under penalty of perjury. All of the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, the foregoing is true and correct. FURTHER DECLARANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
Dated and executed this 18th day of May, 2020. s/ Matthew Turner Matthew Turner, Jail Captain, Weld County Sheriff’s Office
10

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-2 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT F-1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-2 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT F-1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-3 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1

EXHIBIT F-2
Medically Vulnerable Screening Tool

Statement to patient:
“Hi, we are conducting a screening all patients in the facility to determine if you are considered a medically vulnerable inmate.”

Do you, or are you any of the following:
1
55 years of age or older Underlying chronic health condition History of smoking History of substance abuse Pregnant

2
65 years of age or older Chronic lung disease Moderate to severe asthma Serious heart condition Immunocompromised Severe obesity Chronic kidney disease Undergoing dialysis Liver disease

**THIS FORM IS FOR DATA COLLECTION PURPOSES ONLY. IT WILL NOT BE A PERMANET PART OF THE MEDICAL RECORD**

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-4 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1

NAME:__________________ DOB_____________________JID#___________________POD:__________
EXHIBIT F-3
Medically Vulnerable Screening Tool

Statement to patient:
“Hi, we are conducting a screening all patients in the facility to determine if you are considered a medically vulnerable inmate.”

Do you, or are you any of the following:
1
55 years of age or older Underlying chronic health condition History of smoking History of substance abuse Pregnant

2
65 years of age or older Chronic lung disease Moderate to severe asthma Serious heart condition Immunocompromised Severe obesity Chronic kidney disease Undergoing dialysis Liver disease

**THIS FORM IS FOR DATA COLLECTION PURPOSES ONLY. IT WILL NOT BE A PERMANET PART OF THE MEDICAL RECORD**

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-5 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT F-4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-5 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT F-4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-6 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2

EXHIBIT F-5

Daily Totals re COVID-19 Infection in Weld County Jail Inmate Population from April 30, 2020 to May 17, 2020

(As compiled gratuitously by Weld County Sheriff’s Office on May 18, 2020, without creating any obligation on behalf of the Sheriff or his Office to compile data further)

Date
04/30/2020 05/01/2020 05/02/2020 05/03/2020 05/04/2020 05/05/2020 05/06/2020 05/07/2020 05/08/2020 05/09/2020 05/10/2020 05/11/2020 05/12/2020 05/13/2020 05/14/2020 05/15/2020 05/16/2020 05/17/2020

Total Inmate Count in Isolation
10 9 10 10 7 7 4 51 4 52 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Inmates who Tested Positive
for COVID-19 Within the WCJ as Diagnosed by a Health Care
Professional 7 7 7 7 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Inmates who Have Been Designated
“Suspected” Positive for COVID19 Within the WCJ
By a Health Care Professional 3 2 2 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1

Units of Inmates in WCJ Who Are Asymptomatic for COVID-19 Yet
Nevertheless Were Subject to
Quarantine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

1 On May 7, 2020, the inmate who brought the isolation count up from “4” to “5” was a new arrestee who showed symptoms of COVID-19 and was placed on the WCJ’s existing COVID-19 medical isolation protocol immediately upon completion of intake process without awaiting a 14-day quarantine in any intake-transition unit.
2 On May 9, 2020, the inmate who brought the isolation count up from “4” to “5” was a new arrestee who showed symptoms of COVID-19 and was placed on the WCJ’s existing COVID-19 medical isolation protocol immediately upon completion of intake process without awaiting a 14-day quarantine in any intake-transition unit.
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-6 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2

EXHIBIT F-5

Additional Information Relating to WCJ Inmates as of 11:59 PM MDT May 17, 2020

Total number of persons in custody of WCJ since March 1, 2020 Inmates tested for COVID-19 within the WCJ3 Total positive tests for COVID-19 within the WCJ4 Persons “suspected positive” but not tested for COVID-195
Inmates “medically isolated” for COVID-19 from April 30, 2020 to May 17, 20206 Inmates transported to hospital for COVID-19 since April 30, 20207

2232 26 10 2 5
1

Additional Information Relating to WCJ Staff as of 11:59 PM MDT May 17, 2020
From April 30, 2020 to May 17, 2020, and pursuant to the limitations and protocols identified on page 3 and 4 of Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction Hearing Exhibit 8, which the Court admitted into evidence at that hearing, only one additional Detentions Division staff member tested positive for COVID-19. As before, this number does not include medical or mental health providers at WCJ or non-inmate food service workers because the WCSO does not have access to any data regarding medical or mental health professionals at WCJ or non-inmate food service workers at WCJ, as these individuals are under the auspices of their own employers which are not the WCSO.

3 The inmates administered a COVID-19 test were given a test on the basis of being designated “suspected positive” as that term is been defined by the CDC in the specific context of correctional medicine, and which designation was made by a medical professional based on CDC guidelines. This is only a 1.16% “suspected positive” rate.
4 This number is the same as that provided to the Court on April 30, 2020. This is only a 0.448% “actual positive” rate.
5 Both inmates who fall into this category were given an opportunity to be tested as they left the WCJ, one due to the natural expiration of a sentence and the other by virtue of bonding out, but they each refused the test. And both have now been out of custody for more than 30 days as of May 18, 2020.
6 The inmates who were “medically isolated” as that term is been defined by the CDC in the specific context of correctional medicine were so isolated as determined necessary by a medical professional based on CDC guidelines and as being either “positive” or “suspected positive” by a medical professional as those terms have been defined by the CDC in the specific context of correctional medicine. And this number includes those two inmates identified in footnotes 1 and 2 supra who were new arrestees who showed symptoms of COVID-19 and were placed on the WCJ’s existing COVID-19 medical isolation protocol immediately upon completion of intake process without awaiting a 14-day quarantine in any intake-transition unit.
7 The one additional inmate who was transferred to a hospital specifically related to COVID-19 concerns was so transported after a determination was made by a medical professional based on CDC guidelines that transport should occur.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-7 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

EXHIBIT G

Civil Action No. 20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC

THOMAS CARRANZA; JESUS MARTINEZ; RICHARD BARNUM; THOMAS LEWIS; MICHAEL WARD; COLBY PROPES; and CHAD HUNTER,

Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons,

v.

STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,

Defendant.

DECLARATION OF UNDERSHERIFF DONALD PATCH

I, Undersheriff Donald Patch, being of lawful age and duly sworn under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, and for my Declaration in the above-captioned case, hereby declare as follows:
1. I have personal knowledge of the matters in this Declaration. 2. I am the Undersheriff for the Weld County Sheriff’s Office (“WCSO”), County of Weld, State of Colorado. I am second in command over the WCSO and report only to the Sheriff. I have served in this position for four (4) years. 3. Before beginning my tenure as the WCSO Undersheriff on February 13, 2016, I was employed with the WCSO for sixteen (16) prior years and served in many positions: Mounted Posse member (volunteer position); Corrections Officer (what is now called

1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-7 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 12
Detentions Deputy); Animal Control Officer; I earned my Peace Officer Standards Training (“POST”) certification; Patrol Deputy; Traffic Deputy; Detective; Deputy III (equivalent to corporal); Investigations Commander (equivalent to sergeant); Lieutenant; Captain; and Undersheriff. Of my 20 total years working for the WCSO, I have spent a total of one (1) year working in the WCJ and four (4) years of administrative oversight of WCJ operations.
4. I also earned a Bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice Administration from the University of Phoenix.
5. I am individually familiar with the protocols and processes the WCSO as a whole generated, implemented, and refined in response to the global, national, and local public health threat posed by the novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”) from February 27, 2020, to today, because I was personally involved in generating, implementing, refining, and approving such protocols and processes in consultation with the leadership team of the WCSO and local public health officials. All protocols and processes outlined in Sheriff Steven Reams’ Declaration dated April 13, 2020, remain in effect today. All protocols and processes outlined in the Supplemental Declaration of WCSO Jail Captain Matt Turner (“Captain Turner”) dated April 24, 2020, also remain in effect today.
6. I am further individually familiar with the protocols and processes the WCSO as a whole has generated, implemented, and refined from April 24, 2020, to date in continued consultation with the WCJ’s medical services provider Turn Key Health Clinics (“TKHC”), as well as the Weld County Health Department (“WCHD”), both of which the WCSO has consulted extensively.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-7 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 12
7. I am moreover individually familiar with the protocols and processes the WCSO as a whole has generated, implemented, and refined following the entry of the District Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF 55] in the above-captioned case, which I have read in its entirety.
SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL STEPS WCSO TOOK TO COMBAT COVID-19, IN CONSULTATION WITH WCJ’S MEDICAL
SERVICES PROVIDER, FROM MAY 11, 2020, TO PRESENT 8. ECF 55 was entered in the afternoon hours of May 11, 2020. 9. On May 12, 2020, the WCSO consulted with TKHC to plan to interview all inmates and pretrial detainees (collectively “inmates” herein) then in custody at the WCJ, whether in general population housing units or in the intake/transition housing units, to ascertain whether they were “medically vulnerable” regarding COVID-19 under the limited criteria set forth by this Court. 10. In furtherance of making such an interview process functionally possible and accomplished in as expeditious a manner as possible, TKHC developed a third updated screening tool to use during this process. 11. As of May 13, 2020, this detailed screening tool will now be a standard part of the booking process for new arrivals to the WCJ until the COVID-19 pandemic resolves at some unknown future date, subject to further refinement as needed and in consultation with TKHC. 12. It is important to understand prior to the implementation of this new standard, while the WCJ had not yet performed a simultaneous COVID-19-specific assessment of the medical conditions of all WCJ inmates, the WCJ had performed a quite similar
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-7 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 12
assessment of medical conditions of WCJ inmates as needed on an individualized basis, and specifically when housing units were combined to make room for more intake/transition units so the WCSO could house, to the best of its ability, those inmates who might be more susceptible to COVID-19 given the physical-plant limitations of the WCJ and also given objective classification needs and other criteria which were required to be taken into account.
13. All 462 inmates then in custody in the WCJ on May 13, 2020 were interviewed. 14. During the interview process, WCJ medical staff asked all inmates a series of questions preceded by a verbal statement, which for the sake of consistency was read word-for-word to all inmates before the questions began, and that verbal statement was: “Hi, we are conducting a screening of all patients in the facility to determine if you are considered medically vulnerable to COVID 19.” 15. All inmates were asked two categories of questions. 16. First, inmates were asked questions relating to the expansive definition of “medically vulnerable” as proposed by the Plaintiffs in this case, which the Court rejected. An inmate who verbally answered “yes” to any of the following questions was marked as MV55 in the WCJ jail management system:
a. Are you 55 years of age or older? b. Do you have any of the following chronic health conditions: Cancer; Autoimmune disease (including lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, Sjogren’s, or Crohn’s); Chronic lung disease (including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchiectasis, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, or other chronic condition
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-7 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 12
associated with impaired lung function); History of cardiovascular disease; Chronic arthritis; Chronic liver or kidney disease; Diabetes; Hypertension; Heart failure; HIV; On chronic steroids or other immunosuppressant medications for chronic conditions; History of smoking or substance abuse disorder; or are you Pregnant? 17. Second, all inmates also were asked questions relating to the more limited definition of “medically vulnerable” adopted by this Court. An inmate who verbally answered “yes” to any of the following questions was marked as MV65 in the WCJ jail management system:
a. Are you 65 years of age or older? b. Do you have any of the following chronic health conditions: Chronic lung disease or moderate to severe asthma; Serious heart conditions; immunocompromised; Severe obesity; Diabetes; Chronic kidney disease and undergoing dialysis; or Liver disease? 18. As of May 13, 2020, the number of inmates then within the WCJ who verbally answered “yes” to the set of questions derived from this Court’s definition of “medically vulnerable” was approximately 4.25 times fewer than the number of inmates who verbally answered “yes” to the set of questions derived from Plaintiffs’ expansive definition of “medically vulnerable.” These findings are consistent with the WCJ’s prior analysis of the issue that almost everyone then in the custody of the WCJ as of April 30, 2020, fit Plaintiffs’ definition of “medically vulnerable.” 19. After this data was collected, each form was reviewed to ensure the inmates who gave affirmative verbal responses to the various sets of questions was appropriately
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-7 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 12
tracked in the WCJ Jail Management System, allowing the WCSO to print a roster by inmate number and risk category as now provided to this Court. I understand the Court received this roster with Captain Turner’s Second Supplemental Declaration [Exh. F-4].
20. All inmates who entered the custody of the WCJ from after 3:00 PM on May 13, 2020, to 8:00 AM on May 18, 2020, were asked the same two sets of questions, consistent with the WCJ’s adoption of these questions into its intake/transition unit protocol. Their responses are included in the information provided in Exh. F-4.
21. To date, the information provided verbally by the inmates on May 13, 2020, and from after 3:00 PM on May 13, 2020, to 8:00 AM on May 18, 2020, has not been independently verified by WCJ medical staff, as the time required to do this would exceed the May 18, 2020, 5:00 PM MDT deadline to respond to the Court. This data entry included designation of a code in the system to be able to efficiently identify “medically vulnerable” inmates as defined by the Court in the Jail Management System.
22. The results of these interviews were entered into the WCSO Jail Management System at my direction by Detentions Deputy Isabelle Himmel and by Captain Turner, and I also participated in the data entry.
23. I enlisted the Weld County Department of Information Technology to create a report that captured the code and to generate a list of “medically vulnerable” inmates as defined by the Court.
24. I used this report to generate a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel, which I then sorted and categorized, and I used said report to produce the final report of the information required by the Court to be disclosed and which Exh. F-4 represents.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-7 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 12
SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONAL COSTS THE WCSO HAS INCURRED, IS INCURRING, AND WILL INCUR TO COMBAT COVID-19 25. While the WCSO was preparing this data to furnish to the Court, it seemed
prudent to me to ascertain the increased financial and operational costs which the WCSO has incurred, is incurring, and will incur in connection with efforts to combat COVID-19. Accordingly, I personally ran the numbers contained in this Declaration on May 15, 2020.
26. Normally, and prior to February 27, 2020 (the date the WCSO began its response to COVID-19), the WCSO’s average cost per day to house an inmate in the WCJ is $103.37. But averaged out over February 27, 2020, to May 15, 2020, the WCSO’s average cost per day to house an inmate in the WCJ has increased to $146.59.
27. This more than 40% increase in the average cost per day to the WCSO to house an inmate in the WCJ incorporates the following specific expenditures which have been occasioned solely for the WCSO’s response to COVID-19 and for no other reason.
a. $3,419.00 in additional per-day deputy costs, all of which were attributable to WCSO deputies in the Courts division being reassigned to the WCJ not only because limited in-person court proceedings were occurring, but also because all such deputies are now required at the WCJ due to a sharp increase in daily tasks assigned to deputies. These new tasks include, but are not limited to: maintaining every housing unit as open, even with a reduced inmate population, to ensure social distancing generally; increased incidents of remote court hearings in multiple housing units simultaneously; increased sanitization of housing unit space by Detentions Division deputies; increased frequency of issuing PPE to inmates; increased demand to manage hour-out time for inmates; increased frequency and
7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-7 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 12
use of laundry facilities; and increased efforts for social distancing when moving inmates within the WCJ. It is worth noting that in normal times with average daily population this low in the WCJ, the WCSO could have fewer deputies than normal in the WCJ, but now we have many more deputies than normal even though inmate numbers are so low due to the aforementioned sharp increase in daily tasks.
b. $19,725 in additional food costs, including a significant increase in meal costs due to the continued decline in the average daily population of the WCJ, a significant increase in modifying the menu to be more conducive to grab-and-go type provisions, a significant increase in Styrofoam serving supplies because washing dishes is no longer indicated due to COVID-19, and staff overtime related to food preparation and service.
c. $29,573 in additional total costs for personal protective equipment (“PPE”), representing a wide variety of PPE which the WCSO has had to acquire for various uses, including obtaining cloth masks for inmates, obtaining surgical masks for inmates, securing PPE for Detentions Division staff, and getting nitrile gloves.
d. $106,500 in additional medical costs, including testing kits for COVID-19, an increase in pharmacy costs, a significant increase in PPE specifically for WCJ medical staff, a substantial increase in WCJ medical staffing, and an equally substantial increase in offsite medical costs.
e. $1,032 in medical and data processing costs specifically incurred on May 13, 2020, to conduct “medically vulnerable” interviews as defined by the Court.
8

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-7 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 12
f. For the 82 days (February 27, 2020, through May 15, 2020) the WCJ has engaged in increased operations related to COVID-19 described for this Court in the various Declarations from the Sheriff, Captain Turner, and me, the increased average daily increased expense for COVID-19-related operational changes and supplies has been $1,912.56 per day. This amounts to an additional projected annual expenditure of $699,996.96 if these measures have to be taken until February 27, 2021. Because of the uncertainty as to how COVID-19 will continue to impact future WCJ operations, the increased expenditures for future COVID-19 related operations and supplies remain largely unknown and unknowable. 28. If the average daily population of the WCJ decreases to 400 inmates, the average cost per day to the WCSO to house an inmate in the WCJ will then increase correspondingly to $220.99, a 113.7% increase in the average cost per day from the preCOVID-19 cost. If the average daily population of the WCJ decreases to 300 inmates, the average cost per day to the WCSO to house an inmate in the WCJ will rise to $294.95, a 185% increase in the average cost per day from the pre-COVID-19 cost. The WCSO will have little ability to reduce certain costs, despite lower inmate numbers, because many measures taken to combat COVID-19 in the WCJ require ongoing efforts totally unrelated to inmate population numbers and because the WCSO must maintain increased staffing that would not normally be necessary with such a comparatively low inmate population. 29. I understand the Court already is aware of the Sheriff’s Declaration submitted on April 13, 2020, in this case, which detailed for the Court the limits on the physical plant
9

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-7 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 12
of the WCJ given the statutory and state court judicial requirements under which the Sheriff and his command staff and deputies labor to do their best to keep inmates safe.
30. I also understand the Court is aware of the Sheriff’s Declaration concerning the fact the Sheriff does not possess any legal authority to modify the type of, monetary security allowed by, or other conditions of pretrial detainees’ bonds or to reconsider or reduce inmates’ sentences, all of which are set by the state court judge presiding over the individual cases of each inmate, and the fact the Sheriff possesses no legal authority to permit any of these inmates to serve their sentences or pretrial period at home or any other detention facility other than the WCJ as any such decision would have to be made by a state court judge.
31. Despite these limitations which are a necessary consequence of Colorado’s state court judicial system and criminal justice statutory regime, the WCJ has continued to work to single-cell inmates wherever and whenever possible while still maintaining best practices for anti-transmission of communicable disease and addressing all of the custody issues, classification issues, and other specific issues which must be taken into consideration in any housing placement of all inmates in the WCJ.
32. The situation as it existed on April 24, 2020, as detailed in Captain Turner’s Supplemental Declaration which I understand was filed with the Court that date, is particularly relevant in light of the average housing unit space as detailed above, which even given the passage of more than three more weeks still is not enough to maintain six feet of distance between all inmates at all times within the WCJ.
10

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-7 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 12
33. As of 8:00 AM today, the WCJ currently houses 450 inmates. As previously articulated, the Sheriff lacks the legal authority to release any of the inmates currently detained. The release of any inmate by the appropriate judicial authorities, in my view, must necessarily take into the consideration the issue of the public safety of the community from the reintroduction of the inmates into the general public based on issues of recidivism and the resulting potential danger to the community.
34. The WCSO and the WCJ have done and continue to do what we are able to address all issues related to COVID-19 including inmate distancing within the confines of the physical plant of the WCJ and the number of inmates at the WCJ. The WCSO and the WCJ continue to work on these issues every day seeking guidance from all available sources and continuing to refine all applicable policies and protocols based on new guidance disseminated from any of the many sources relied upon. Every day during this pandemic, I have worked extremely hard and to the best of my ability to ensure all WCJ inmates, all staff who work there, and all individuals who interact at the WCJ remain as safe as possible based on all the information I know about COVID-19 and its transmission and spread. That has been the mission of the WCJ since the outbreak began and will continue to be as long as it continues. Finally, as before, the last thing the WCSO desires is to be forced to adopt measures which completely undermine the effective steps we have taken to plan for, slow, stop, and further guard against the spread of COVID-19.
I understand the statements written in this Declaration are given under penalty of perjury. All of the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-7 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 12
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, the foregoing is true and correct. FURTHER DECLARANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
Dated and executed this 18th day of May, 2020. s/ Donald Patch Donald Patch, Undersheriff, Weld County Sheriff’s Office
12

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-8 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 22

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

EXHIBIT H

Civil Action No. 20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC

THOMAS CARRANZA; JESUS MARTINEZ; RICHARD BARNUM; THOMAS LEWIS; MICHAEL WARD; COLBY PROPES; and CHAD HUNTER,

Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons,

v.

STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,

Defendant.

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF SHERIFF STEVEN REAMS

I, Sheriff Steven Reams, being of lawful age and duly sworn under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, and for my Supplemental Declaration in the abovecaptioned case (“Declaration”), hereby declare as follows:
1. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this Declaration. 2. I currently serve as the duly elected Sheriff for the County of Weld, State of Colorado. I have served as Sheriff for a total of five (5) years. 3. Before beginning my tenure as Weld County Sheriff on January 25, 2015, I was employed with the Weld County Sheriff’s Office (“WCSO”) for eighteen (18) prior years and served in many positions: master control operator, Detentions Division officer, patrol deputy after earning Peace Officer Standards Training (“POST”) certification, detective,

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-8 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 22
commander, Detentions Division deputy bureau chief, Patrol Division deputy bureau chief, Public Safety bureau chief, and Detentions Division bureau chief.
4. I earned a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice from Colorado Technical University in 2007, and I also completed the FBI National Academy in 2007.
5. I am individually familiar with the protocols and processes the WCSO as a whole generated, implemented, and refined in response to the global, national, and local public health threat posed by the novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”) from February 27, 2020, through today, because I was personally involved in generating, implementing, refining, and approving all protocols and processes in consultation with a team of WCSO staff and local public health officials. All protocols and processes outlined in my Declaration dated April 13, 2020, remains in effect today. All protocols and processes outlined in the Supplemental Declaration of WCSO Jail Captain Matt Turner (“Captain Turner”) dated April 24, 2020, also remains in effect today.
6. All decisions I have made and the WCSO has adopted at the Weld County Jail (“WCJ”) related to the COVID-19 pandemic, from February 27, 2020, through and including today and anticipated to continue on into the future, have been made based on an assessment of the health and safety needs of the inmates and detainees (hereinafter collectively “inmates”), WCSO employees, and the public. All decisions I have made and the WCSO has adopted at the WCJ related to the COVID-19 pandemic have also been made based on the distinct operational needs of the WCJ as a jail; the physical plant, structure, and layout of WCJ; and the resources and supplies available to the WCSO. As this Declaration establishes, I and the WCSO continue to evaluate and respond to
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-8 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 22
different events which have occurred since COVID-19 became an issue for the WCSO generally and at the WCJ specifically and we will continue to do so.
7. I am further individually familiar with the protocols and processes the WCSO as a whole has generated, implemented, and refined from April 24, 2020, to date in continued consultation with the WCJ’s medical services provider Turn Key Health Clinics (“TKHC”), as well as the Weld County Health Department (“WCHD”), both of which the WCSO has consulted extensively.
8. I am moreover individually familiar with the protocols and processes the WCSO as a whole has generated, implemented, and refined following the entry of the District Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF 55] in the above-captioned case, which I have read in its entirety.
SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL STEPS WCSO TOOK TO COMBAT COVID-19, IN CONSULTATION WITH WCJ’S MEDICAL SERVICES PROVIDER, FROM MAY 11,
2020, TO PRESENT, INCLUDING IMPLEMENTATION OF ECF 55 9. ECF 55 was entered in the afternoon hours of May 11, 2020. 10. On May 12, 2020, the WCSO consulted with TKHC, its medical services provider, to plan to interview all inmates and pretrial detainees (collectively “inmates” herein) then in custody at the WCJ, whether in general population housing units or in the intake/transition housing units, to ascertain whether they were “medically vulnerable” regarding COVID-19 under the limited criteria delineated by this Court. 11. On May 13, 2020, the WCJ and an augmented nursing staff from TKHC began around 8:00 AM to perform a facility-wide screening of WCJ inmates to ascertain whether they were “medically vulnerable” regarding COVID-19 under this Court’s criteria and this process continued until about 3:00 PM that day.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-8 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 22
12. Separately, beginning the morning of May 12, 2020, my command staff and I reviewed ECF 55 and assessed the ability of my Office to comply with this Court’s directives on pages 38-39 in the context of: the WCJ’s physical plant, structure, and layout; the WCJ’s population needs; the classification needs my Office must take into account when housing inmates; and the resources and supplies available to my Office.
13. In furtherance of the directives on pages 38-39 of this Court’s Order, the following represents the best efforts of my Office to implement this Court’s Order based on the above context.
(1) POLICY WCSO DEVELOPED, IN CONNECTION WITH EFFORTS TO COMBAT COVID-19, TO SOCIALLY DISTANCE “MEDICALLY VULNERABLE” INMATES IN
THE WCJ FROM ALL OTHER INMATES NOT MEETING THAT DESCRIPTION 14. First, on page 38, the WCJ had to institute “[a] policy ensuring that, to the
maximum extent possible considering the Jail’s physical layout, population level, and classification needs, medically vulnerable inmates are ‘socially distanced’ from other inmates housed in the Jail. If social distancing is effectively impossible for some or all of the medically vulnerable inmates in the Jail, such policy may be supplemented by housing medically vulnerable inmates together in one or more pods.”
15. POLICY: My Office considered and analyzed this particular directive from every possible angle, and came up with the following policy to comply. In light of the importance the Court assigned to social distancing of “medically vulnerable” inmates as defined by the Court (the definition used in this paragraph and all subsequent paragraphs) from all inmates who did not qualify as such, and considering the WCJ’s physical layout, population level, and classification needs: the “medically vulnerable” inmates will remain in their current cells and in current cohorted “family units” to the extent they are cohorted
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-8 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 22
only with other “medically vulnerable” inmates in those cells; the WCJ will treat “medically vulnerable” inmates as a Special Management population within the WCJ; all housing units presently containing “medically vulnerable” inmates will go on modified lockdown protocol; the WCJ will stagger periodic release of “medically vulnerable” inmates and cohorts for their “hour out” under this modified lockdown protocol, so “medically vulnerable” inmates are not out at the same time as inmates who are not “medically vulnerable”; all “medically vulnerable” inmates will spend time out of their cells only in the common areas which allow for social distancing, only with other “medically vulnerable” inmates, and only in groups of no more than 10 total persons (inclusive of jail staff, e.g., up to 9 inmates and 1 Detentions Division Deputy); and to the limited extent inmates who are not “medically vulnerable” currently are in a cell with those who are “medically vulnerable,” the WCJ will move the inmates who are not “medically vulnerable” out of those cells and will reassign them as appropriate throughout the WCJ and in consideration of both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 factors which affect where inmates can be housed in the WCJ to the maximum extent possible.
16. PROCESS: I believe it is important for the Court to understand my and my Office’s thought processes behind this policy, so I have set them forth below.
a. The CDC states social distancing is a cornerstone of reducing transmission of respiratory diseases like COVID-19 in detention environments, yet it recognizes social distancing is quite challenging to practice in detention environments.
b. No two inmates are alike. Every person in custody has individual needs and concerns potentially affecting custody status. The WCJ has an approximate total of 302 cells, but it is not possible to fill all of them, as filling all of them would mean
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-8 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 22
mixing in the same housing unit populations which should not be housed together from a detention facility management perspective.
c. Well before COVID-19 was a concern in the WCJ, many factors affected where inmates could be housed in the WCJ: Gender; Security classification (e.g., maximum, medium, minimum); Intake risk assessment; Suicide risk; Mental health considerations; Medical isolation (not related to COVID-19); Special needs considerations; Special security housing (protective custody); Court-imposed separation; Security-imposed separation; Serious violence threat; Behavioral issues; Known management problems; Physical size; and Inmate worker (trusty).
d. The COVID-19 pandemic added several factors, further complicating where inmates can be housed within the WCJ: COVID-19 isolation; Quarantine (due to possible close contact with a COVID-19 case); 14-day observation quarantine; Intake/transition units; designation as “suspected positive” for COVID-19; and “medically vulnerable” inmates.
e. Presently 89 out of 450 WCJ inmates (as of 8:00 AM today) are “medically vulnerable,” but unfortunately they are completely spread out amongst almost every custody level in the WCJ, in both male and female populations, with a variety of criminal charges, and both convicted individuals and pretrial detainees.
f. Even in the event the WCJ inmate population reaches a low enough number to allow the WCJ to realign its inmate housing situation such that even half of the “medically vulnerable” inmates could be single-celled, several points of consideration create grave concerns and counsel strongly against doing so:
6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-8 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 22
i. Single-celling all “medically vulnerable” inmates will negatively impact non-“medically vulnerable” inmates exponentially as an increased number of non-“medically vulnerable” inmates would have to be celled together, necessitating the “mixing” of inmates and the creation of new “family units” which of course potentially increases the risk of transmission of COVID-19.
ii. Although the Court made allowance that, if social distancing is effectively impossible for some or all “medically vulnerable” inmates in the WCJ, such policy may be supplemented by housing “medically vulnerable” inmates together in one or more pods, we are concerned this will not be workable either. Our concern is because of what I will call the “nursing home effect”. That is, should a “medically vulnerable” inmate contract COVID-19 in such a situation, that inmate would be in close proximity to all “medically vulnerable” inmates in the WCJ, thus undoing what the Court presumably was trying to accomplish by means of this allowance, and the risk of spreading COVID-19 to other “medically vulnerable” inmates would be much too great. I read news reports indicating that, in April 2020, in a residential, non-hospital care nursing home facility in Greeley, 14 residents died due to an outbreak, and similar outbreaks were seen in facilities like these across Colorado and throughout the United States.
iii. Moreover, mass movement, reallocation, and dispersal of inmates from their current locations within the WCJ to new locations within the WCJ would be extremely disruptive to the safety and security of the WCJ, its inmates, and my Detentions Division staff. This is true both because of the
7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-8 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 22
potential increased spread of COVID-19 from such movement and intermingling of prior “family units,” but also because of the general safety and security considerations involved in wholesale movement of inmates in a jail setting. g. All these factors combined make it very difficult to create a policy allowing for housing all WCJ inmates in a manner which guarantees social distancing for “medically vulnerable” inmates as defined by the Court. h. On May 14, 2020, the WCSO team responsible for the operations of the WCJ tried to create a plan to enable the WCJ to create housing units specifically designated for inmates who were classified as “medically vulnerable” as defined by the Court. Staff members of all ranks participated in this meeting, generating multiple ideas, yet still having to account for all factors and concerns set forth above. Due to the limitations of the WCJ’s physical layout, it was effectively impossible to create housing units solely for the purpose of housing “medically vulnerable” inmates. To accomplish this, while still accounting for all factors listed above, the WCJ would need somewhere between 8 and 12 additional housing units as well as anywhere from 48 to 72 additional Detentions Division deputies to oversee them. No bed space in any other detention facility or correctional facility is available for purchase to secure such units for current WCJ inmates. i. Thus, the only option for the WCJ was: to create a policy ensuring that, to the maximum extent possible considering its physical layout, population level, and classification needs, “medically vulnerable” inmates are “socially distanced” from other inmates while in the WCJ, essentially through modified lockdown and
8

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-8 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 22
staggered release, when considering the other allowance the Court made for the WCJ to account for the risk to “medically vulnerable” inmates from noncompliant inmates by using family groupings or stagger release of individual cells, and trying to single-cell or cohort “medically vulnerable” inmates within their current housing units based on objective classification, as well as on WCJ physical plant limitations in conjunction with current population and classification needs. These factors simply will not allow for all “medically vulnerable” inmates to be housed in a common unit or units, nor can all “medically vulnerable” inmates be single-celled.
j. This sole option also had to encompass the need to keep three full housing units for use solely as intake/transition units and one full housing unit open as an isolation unit for inmates who may test positive for COVID-19 in the future.
k. At bottom, continuing to use objective classification criteria and housing “medically vulnerable” inmates in the typical units and cells in which they normally would be assigned provides the best opportunity to treat their potential medical needs yet not subjecting WCJ operations and its other inmates to undue hardship. 17. As I endeavored to explain to the Court in my testimony on April 30, 2020, the social distancing strategy implemented by the WCSO within the WCJ is tailored to the physical layout, population level, and classification needs of the WCJ. (2) POLICY WCSO DEVELOPED, IN CONNECTION WITH EFFORTS TO COMBAT COVID-19, TO SINGLE-CELL OR OTHERWISE SOCIALLY DISTANCE “MEDICALLY VULNERABLE” INMATES WITHIN THE WCJ’S INTAKE/TRANSITION UNITS 18. Second, on page 38, the WCSO had to institute “[a] procedure, as part of the intake of new inmates into the Jail, for “medically vulnerable” inmates to be single-celled
9

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-8 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 22
or otherwise socially distanced, to the maximum extent possible considering the Jail’s physical layout and classification needs, while housed in the transition unit.”
19. POLICY: My Office considered and analyzed this particular directive from every possible angle, and came up with the following policy to comply. To the maximum extent possible considering the WCJ’s physical layout, population level, and classification needs, “medically vulnerable” inmates as defined by the Court who are admitted to WCJ’s intake/transition units must be housed in a cell within such unit alone and away from other inmates. If it is not possible to house a “medically vulnerable” inmate alone in a cell within an intake/transition unit due to the WCJ’s physical layout, population level, and classification needs, that inmate must be housed in a cell within an intake/transition unit with no more than one other inmate, which inmate must also be “medically vulnerable,” in accordance with cohorting practices the CDC specifically outlines and endorses. If, despite this allowance, it still is not possible to house a “medically vulnerable” inmate either alone or with only one other “medically vulnerable” inmate in a cell within an intake/transition unit due to the WCJ’s physical layout, population level, and classification needs, and no other option is apparent, Detentions Division Deputies must contact a Shift Sergeant for guidance immediately.
20. PROCESS: I believe it is important for the Court to understand our thought processes behind this policy, so I have set them forth below.
a. As stated above, when considering the WCJ’s physical layout, population level, and classification needs, only three housing units within the WCJ are able to be used as intake/transition units.
10

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-8 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 22
b. All non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 housing factors (and concerns relating to the WCJ’s physical layout, population level, and classification needs) recounted extensively above in ¶¶ 16(a)-(k) of this Declaration, which the WCJ considered in developing a policy for socially distancing “medically vulnerable” inmates within the WCJ, also equally applied to the development of this policy.
c. These factors combined make it very difficult to create a policy allowing for housing all “medically vulnerable” inmates in a manner which guarantees they will be single-celled or otherwise socially distanced while in intake/transition units due to the physical limitation of available units and number of cells inside those units. 21. Thus, the only option for the WCJ was to create and implement the policy I outlined above with respect to “medically vulnerable” inmates in intake/transition units. (3) POLICY WCSO DEVELOPED, IN CONNECTION WITH EFFORTS TO COMBAT COVID-19, TO ENHANCE SANITATION PROCEDURES IN AREAS WHERE
“MEDICALLY VULNERABLE” INMATES MAY BE HOUSED 22. Third, on page 38, my Office had to institute “[a] policy of enhanced sanitation procedures in areas where medically vulnerable inmates are housed. This may include expanded use of professional cleaning services of the Jail and/or increasing the frequency with which trustees clean common areas in non-trustee pods. Such policy should be compliant with the CDC guidelines for cleaning and disinfecting practices.” 23. POLICY: My Office considered and analyzed this particular directive from every possible angle, and came up with the following policy to comply. Detentions Division staff, and not existing professional cleaning staff or inmate Trustees, will conduct enhanced sanitation of housing units housing “medically vulnerable” inmates as defined by the Court. Prior to “medically vulnerable” inmates entering any common area,
11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-8 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 22
Detentions Division staff will spray HALT disinfectant spray on all surfaces in the common area open for use by “medically vulnerable” inmates allowing 10 minutes of contact time for complete disinfection to occur before “medically vulnerable” inmates enter. Common areas will be limited in size for “medically vulnerable” inmates (to half the typical common area) to ensure complete cleaning of phones, tables, handrails, bathroom facilities, sinks, toilets, and other similar common-area equipment inmates use regularly. “Medically vulnerable” inmates will be encouraged to practice social distancing continuously, to disinfect any commonly used equipment on their way out and their way in, and to increase their own cleaning practices to include frequent hand washing and personal sanitation. “Medically vulnerable” inmates who willfully refuse to adhere to recommended practices to prevent the spread of COVID-19 despite such encouragements will be noted in the WCJ records management system. Whenever possible, “medically vulnerable” inmates will be housed in cells giving them immediate access to bathroom facilities (wet cell) within limits of the WCJ’s physical layout, population level, and objective classification requirements. Personal hygiene supplies and HALT disinfectant spray bottles will continue to remain available to all inmates, inclusive of “medically vulnerable” inmates, without cost. In the event the WCJ inmate population reaches a low enough threshold that “medically vulnerable” inmates can be further distanced from non-“medically vulnerable” inmates, when considering the WCJ’s physical layout, population level, and objective classification requirements, then every effort will be taken to do so while maintaining such objective classification. If it becomes possible or appropriate to do so, despite the concerns outlined above, units housing only “medically vulnerable” inmates will be attempted, with particular emphasis on ensuring that movement to this type of
12

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-8 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 22
housing authorization can be done on more than just a “short term” basis. Limiting movement from one housing unit to another to ensure prevention of cross-contamination from one population to another population is consistent with the WCJ’s strong desire to ensure the health and safety of all involved. Increased supplies of HALT disinfectant spray have been obtained and increased mask orders have been placed, yet increased professional cleaning services may be required to augment what Detentions Division staff will be doing if this COVID-19 pandemic continues past the next 90 days.
24. PROCESS: I believe it is important for the Court to understand our thought processes behind this policy, so I have set them forth below.
a. All non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 housing factors (and concerns relating to the WCJ’s physical layout, population level, and classification needs) recounted extensively above in ¶¶ 16(a)-(k) of this Declaration, which the WCJ considered in developing a policy for socially distancing “medically vulnerable” inmates within the WCJ, also apply to the development of this policy.
b. Also, with specific regard to inmate Trustees, which by way of reminder can consist only of a small subset of inmates who are sentenced to the WCJ (distinct from inmates sentenced to the Colorado Department of Corrections and awaiting transport), not enough Trustee inmates currently are available to be assigned to clean housing units on a more frequent basis due to the substantial decrease in overall jail population. There simply are not enough Trustee inmates to provide for “in pod” trusty cleaners. Currently, the WCJ has only 7 inmates who are classified as Trustee inmates. As of May 16, 2020, there are only 2 Trustee inmates working in the WCJ kitchen. There are 3 Trustee inmates in one intake/transition unit which
13

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-8 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 22
has not yet finished its 14-day observation period, and another 4 Trustee inmates in a second intake/transition unit which has not reached the capacity for its 14-day observation period to be started—3 of whom will be out of custody by the time their 14-day observation period ends. The WCJ is experiencing a Trustee inmate shortage right now, and any efforts to increase use of Trustee inmates cannot be met because the WCJ does not have enough of such inmates to do so.
c. Further, with specific regard to the existing WCJ professional cleaning staff, they are employed to clean the commonly-used areas of the WCJ. There are not enough professional cleaning staff to allocate their time to individual housing units where “medically vulnerable” inmates may be present. Also, the WCJ professional cleaning staff work a limited schedule of hours to allow for cleaning of common areas in the WCJ—during the early morning hours when there is low foot traffic in the facility—and they are not staffed to provide 24-hours, 7-days-per-week cleaning services. Nor do we have the budget to modify their hours or hire additional such staff.
d. Finally, with specific regard to how inmates are informed of their obligation to increase their own personal cleaning and personal sanitation practices, my Office and its staff cannot “order” inmates to engage in cleaning (or social distancing or mask wearing for that matter), whether “medically vulnerable” or otherwise, as characterizing the communication in that fashion will have a host of collateral consequences under the Code of Penal Discipline (e.g., a charge for Disobeying a Lawful Order) and my staff have no desire to invoke that provision, as it seems to us quite counterproductive to the environment we are trying to foster
14

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-8 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 22
in the WCJ. Instead, all we can and should do is “encourage” all inmates to engage in appropriate personal cleaning and personal sanitation practices. 25. Thus, the only option for the WCJ was to create and implement the policy I outlined above with respect to enhanced sanitation procedures in areas where “medically vulnerable” inmates are housed, taking into account CDC guidelines for the same, and while still upholding the purpose of this particular directive. (4) PLAN WCSO DEVELOPED, IN CONNECTION WITH EFFORTS TO COMBAT COVID-19, TO AUGMENT ALREADY-EXISTING INMATE ACCESS TO MASKS AND
ENSURE SUFFICIENT SUPPLY OF MASKS TO INMATES 26. Fourth, on page 39, my Office had to institute “[a] plan to obtain a sufficient number or type of masks so that inmates do not need to wear them for more than their intended duration or so that inmates may be able to clean them,” which I and my Office understand to be inclusive of the Court’s additional statement also on page 39 that “Defendant shall explain in such report what steps the Jail has taken to acquire an adequate mask supply for inmates housed in the Jail.” 27. PLAN: My Office considered and analyzed this particular directive from every possible angle, and came up with the following plan in compliance with it.
a. SURGICAL MASKS: On April 24, 2020, my Office placed an order via the Weld County Office of Emergency Management (“OEM”) for 1,000 surgical/procedure masks specifically for inmate use. Then, on April 28, 2020, my Office received 750 surgical/procedure masks of the 1,000 it ordered. On May 5, 2020, my Office placed a second order via OEM for an additional 1,000 surgical/procedure masks, again specifically for inmate use. Then, on May 8, 2020, my Office received all 1,000 of these surgical/procedure masks it ordered. On May
15

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-8 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 22
12, 2020, my Office placed a third “standing order” via OEM for 1,200 surgical/procedure masks, once again specifically for inmate use, which assuming it can be satisfied will provide a sufficient supply of such masks to reissue WCJ inmates new masks every 72 hours. Since this is a “standing order,” the supply of 1,200 masks will sustain for approximately one week, then be replenished as scheduled for resubmission on a weekly basis. This “standing order” via OEM will remain in place until an adequate supply of reusable cloth masks can be obtained.
b. CLOTH MASKS: In addition, after several days of searching, my Office identified two vendors to obtain reusable cloth masks, both of which have an estimated turn‐around time of early June 2020 to deliver them. On May 13, 2020, my Office placed an order with both vendors, for 3,400 masks total and specifically for inmate use, which will ensure a ready supply to provide each inmate with two cloth masks and also will afford enough time to order a resupply if needed to ensure an available stock of masks. My Office also obtained information from the Colorado Department of Corrections (“CDOC”) concerning a new program administered by the CDOC and the Office of Governor Jared Polis to provide reusable cloth masks to county detention facilities like the WCJ. To my knowledge, my Office was the first county detention facility in the State of Colorado to apply for such masks under this program, and on May 14, 2020, we applied for 1,600 reusable cloth masks, once again specifically for inmate use. However, we have not yet received any confirmation on whether or when those particular reusable cloth masks will be delivered as of the time of the completion of this Declaration.
16

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-8 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 22
28. PROCESS: I believe it is important for the Court to understand our thought processes behind this plan, so I have set them forth below.
a. All non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 housing factors (and concerns relating to the WCJ’s physical layout, population level, and classification needs) recounted extensively above in ¶¶ 16(a)-(k) of this Declaration, which the WCJ considered in developing a policy for socially distancing “medically vulnerable” inmates within the WCJ, also applied to this plan.
b. The WCJ intends to keep ordering both disposable masks and reusable cloth masks, as some WCJ inmates are short-term only (book in and bond out shortly after). Cloth masks (if the WCJ can obtain them in accordance with the multiple efforts set forth above) likely will be issued only to long-term inmates, but with regard to “medically vulnerable” inmates, the WCJ intends to continue to issue such inmates N95 masks (for their increased protection), as long as they remain available, along with reusable cloth masks if the WCJ can get them in accordance with the multiple efforts set forth above. (5) POLICY WCSO DEVELOPED, IN CONNECTION WITH EFFORTS TO COMBAT COVID-19, TO MONITOR “MEDICALLY VULNERABLE” INMATES WITH
INCREASING FREQUENCY FOR SYMPTOMS OF COVID-19 29. Fifth, on page 39, my Office had to institute “[a] policy providing for increased monitoring of medically vulnerable inmates for symptoms of COVID-19.” 30. POLICY: My Office considered and analyzed this particular directive from every possible angle, and came up with the following policy to comply. The WCJ medical staff, who are TKHC personnel, will perform four “daily checks” on inmates who are classified as “medically vulnerable” as defined by the Court These daily checks will
17

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-8 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 22
consist of full symptom screenings according to screening protocols which I understand to be attached to Captain Turner’s Second Supplemental Declaration submitted to the Court today, as may be further enhanced by TKHC in the future] combined with temperature checks. These measures for the “medically vulnerable” inmates will be in addition to the daily checks and monitoring of non-“medically vulnerable” inmates which already were occurring well prior to April 30, 2020.
31. PROCESS: I believe it is important for the Court to understand our thought processes behind this policy, so I have set them forth below.
a. All non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 housing factors (and concerns relating to the WCJ’s physical layout, population level, and classification needs) recounted extensively above in ¶¶ 16(a)-(k) of this Declaration, which the WCJ considered in developing a policy for socially distancing “medically vulnerable” inmates within the WCJ, also were employed in developing this policy.
b. Since April 1, 2020, the WCJ has implemented a number of procedures for implementation by TKHC. These tasks include: screening every new inmate during the booking/intake process; assessing inmates who are in medical isolation every 4 hours; assessing all inmates in quarantine units twice daily; performing increased assessment of inmates in transition units; and screening inmates before they are moved between housing units when consolidation is necessary.
c. In addition, my Office and TKHC also are required to conduct monitoring of inmates awaiting transfer to CDOC, Community Corrections, and Colorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo (“CMHIP”). Though these inmates do not belong to the WCJ, the facilities to which they do belong will not accept them from WCJ without
18

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-8 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 22
required medical information, and instead of taking responsibility to assess such inmates within their own facilities, they mandate the WCJ do that work for them.
i. CDOC requires daily monitoring checks for 14 days before transfer can be requested; but most inmates stay in WCJ custody much longer than 14 days, which means these daily monitoring checks must also continue for the duration of their stay at WCJ.
ii. Community Corrections requires a one-time check prior to transfer. iii. CMHIP also requires a one-time check prior to transfer. d. TKHC staffs the WCJ based on an objective application process in which my Office requests a number of medical personnel based on the number of inmates in custody combined with the number and type of tasks which need completion. Because the workload of WCJ medical staff has increased dramatically, TKHC now requires additional personnel to complete daily tasks in combination with the extra work that has presented itself from this pandemic. e. To get all of the above-mentioned tasks done as well as normal daily operations, TKHC recommends the addition of 2.5 full time employees. Based on financial data gathered when TKHC became the WCJ medical vendor in January 2020, this would require my Office to request approximately $352,000 in additional funds to staff these positions on a 24-hours basis. This number is presented as an approximate dollar amount, as my Office has not been given the final estimate from TKHC as of May 18, 2020, the date of the submission of this Declaration. While this monetary request will represent a significant financial impact to Weld County citizens, my Office is willing to make this request.
19

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-8 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 22
f. The policy set forth in ¶ 30 above is based on the current needs of the WCJ. If the population starts to rise, my Office anticipates the WCJ’s needs will quickly outpace current ability for nursing staff to keep up with demand. 32. All five of these policies and plans will be implemented before 5:00 PM on May 21, 2020, pursuant to the Court’s Order. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS RESPECTING CLASSIFICATIONS DECISIONS WHICH THE WCSO MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, AND WHICH THE COURT MUST ENDEAVOR TO UNDERSTAND, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WCSO’S EFFORTS
TO COMBAT COVID-19 33. The WCSO’s general inmate classification policy must still be applied to all inmates in the WCJ. To ensure the safety and security of the WCJ, inmate classification must be accomplished for all inmates during intake and throughout their detention in the WCJ. WCSO Policy 509 outlines in detail all factors applicable to classification and the classification plan adopted by the WCSO for the WCJ. [See WCSO Policy 509, attached as Exh. H-1]. The WCJ continues to apply this classification system to all inmates at the WCJ, and it represents the most salient non-COVID-19 factor for housing decisions. In addition, however, a variety of other WCSO policies are applicable to the many different decisions the WCJ makes and must make concerning how inmates are housed in the WCJ. These include the following: Inmate Reception [WCSO Policy 502, Exh. H-2]; Inmate Screening and Evaluations [WCSO Policy 701, Exh. H-3]; Special Management Inmates [WCSO Policy 505, Exh. H-4]; Suicide Prevention and Intervention [WCSO Policy 707, Exh. H-5]; and Special Care Inmates [WCSO Policy 703, [Exh. H-6]. As a review of these different policies demonstrates, a whole host of different factors must be considered in how inmates are appropriately housed in the WCJ. The overlay of these
20

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-8 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 22
non-COVID-19 considerations must be understood and appreciated in assessing how the WCJ can address COVID-19 generally and “medical vulnerable” inmates specifically.
THE BOTTOM LINE 34. As of 8:00 AM today, the WCJ currently houses 450 inmates. As previously articulated, I lack the legal authority to release any of the inmates currently detained. The release of any inmate by the appropriate judicial authorities, in my view and that of my Office, must necessarily take into the consideration the issue of the public safety of the community from the reintroduction of the inmates into the general public based on issues of recidivism and the resulting potential danger to the community. 35. The WCJ has done and continues to do what we are able to do to address all issues related to COVID-19 including inmate separation within the confines of the physical plant of the WCJ and the number of inmates at the WCJ. The WCSO continues to work on these issues every day seeking guidance from all available sources and continuing to refine all applicable policies and protocols based on any new guidance disseminated from any of the many sources relied upon. Every day during this pandemic, I and my staff have worked extremely hard and to the best of our ability to ensure all WCJ inmates, all staff who work there, and all individuals who interact at the WCJ remain as safe as possible based on all the information we know about COVID-19 and its transmission and spread. That has been the mission of the WCJ since the outbreak began and will continue to be as long as it continues. Finally, as before, the last thing the WCSO desires is to be forced to adopt measures which completely undermine the effective steps we have taken to plan for, slow, stop, combat, and further guard against the spread of COVID-19.
21

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-8 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 22
I understand the statements written in this Declaration are given under penalty of perjury. All of the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, the foregoing is true and correct. FURTHER DECLARANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
Dated and executed this 18th day of May, 2020. s/ Steven Reams Steven Reams, Sheriff of Weld County
22

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-9 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5

Policy
509

Weld County Sheriff's Office
Weld County SO Detention Policy and Procedure Manual

Inmate Classification

EXHIBIT H-1

509.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This policy describes the Weld County Sheriff's Office’s classification process, which is designed to identify security and health issues so that inmates may be held in such a way as to foster a safe and secure facility.
509.1.1 DEFINITIONS Definitions related to this policy include:
Civil detainee - Any person held in custody for a reason other than for criminal matters.
509.2 POLICY All arrestees and detainees entering this facility will be processed to determine lawful custody, where they will be housed, or released back to the community through an appropriate release mechanism, including alternatives to incarceration programs, such as electronic supervision. In some circumstances Shift Sergeants retain the authority to release arrestees on Personal Recognizance (PR) bonds
It is the policy of this office to properly classify inmates according to security and health risks so that appropriate supervision, temporary holding and housing assignments may be made.

509.3 CLASSIFICATION PLAN The Detentions Captain or the authorized designee should create and maintain a classification plan to guide staff in the processing of individuals brought into the facility. The plan should include an initial screening process, as well as a process for determining appropriate housing assignments. The plan should include use of an objective screening instrument, procedures for making decisions about classification and housing assignments, intake and housing forms and a process to ensure that classification decisions and housing records are maintained in each inmate’s permanent file. The plan should include an evaluation of the following criteria:
• Age
• Sex
• Current charges
• Behavior during arrest and intake process
• Criminal and incarceration history
• Emotional and mental condition
• Potential risk of safety to others or self
• Special management inmate status
• Special needs assessment for vulnerable inmates

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/05/11, All Rights Reserved. Published with permission by Weld County Sheriff's Office

Inmate Classification - 1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-9 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 5
Weld County Sheriff's Office
Weld County SO Detention Policy and Procedure Manual

Inmate Classification

• Behavioral or physical limitations or disabilities

EXHIBIT H-1

• Medical condition

• Level of sobriety at booking

• Suicidal ideation

• Escape history and degree of escape risk

• Prior assaultive or violent behavior

• The need to be separated from other classifications of inmates (e.g., juvenile offenders, gang affiliation, confidential informant, former law enforcement, sexual orientation)

• Prior convictions for sex offenses against an adult or child

• Whether the inmate is or is perceived to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex or gender non-conforming (see Prison Rape Elimination Act Policy for transgender and intersex definitions)

• Previous sexual victimization

• The inmate’s own perception of his/her vulnerability

• Whether the inmate is a foreign national and if so from what country (see Foreign Nationals and Diplomats Policy)

• Prior acts of sexual abuse, prior convictions for violent offenses and history of prior institutional violence or sexual abuse, as known to the Office (28 CFR 115.41)

• Any other criteria as deemed appropriate by the Sheriff or the authorized designee

The plan should include a methodology for evaluating the classification process and a periodic review for the purpose of continuous quality improvement.

Information obtained in response to screening questions shall be considered confidential and shall only be made available to those who have a legitimate need to know (28 CFR 115.41).

509.4 INITIAL CLASSIFICATION The initial classification process is intended to identify predatory, violent and at-risk inmates. It should occur early in the intake process to allow for appropriate supervision while an inmate is being temporarily held in this facility and until a decision is made to place the individual into a more permanent housing assignment.
Inmates should be interviewed by an intake deputy as soon as possible in the booking process. The intake deputy shall complete the initial classification form.
The initial classification form shall be placed in the inmate’s file and provided to the classification specialist.

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/05/11, All Rights Reserved. Published with permission by Weld County Sheriff's Office

Inmate Classification - 2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-9 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 5
Weld County Sheriff's Office
Weld County SO Detention Policy and Procedure Manual

Inmate Classification
EXHIBIT H-1
509.5 CLASSIFICATION UPON HOUSING Once it has been determined that the person arrested will not be released from custody on bail or PR, a more in-depth classification of the inmate will be conducted as soon as possible but no later than 48 hours after the inmate’s arrival at the facility, after which the inmate will be moved to more permanent housing.
509.5.1 INTERVIEW The comprehensive classification process begins with a review of any initial classification information obtained during the reception and booking process, as well as an interview by the classification specialist. The review of initial classification documents and the questions, answers and observations from the inmate’s interview will be documented, representing the security level and housing assignment appropriate for each inmate.
Individualized determinations shall be made about how to ensure the safety of each inmate (28 CFR 115.42).
509.5.2 OVERRIDE The classification specialist has the authority to override the scores when it appears necessary to more appropriately assign housing. The override capability exists to use the classification specialist’s training and expertise in those instances when the classification findings are not reflective of the inmate’s potential security or health risk. All overrides will be reviewed and approved by a supervisor and are intended to be an exception, rather than the rule.
Inmates who have an identified history of sexual victimization shall be offered a meeting with a qualified health care or mental health professional within 14 days of screening (28 CFR 115.81).
509.6 REVIEWS AND APPEALS Once an inmate is classified and housed, he/she may grieve the decision (see Inmate Grievances Policy).
509.6.1 PERIODIC CLASSIFICATION REVIEWS The classification specialist should review the status of all inmates who have been incarcerated in the facility for more than 60 days with the exception of minimum security inmates or inmates that have already been reclassified to a lower security level. The review should examine changes in the inmate’s behavior or circumstances and should either raise, lower or maintain the classification status.
The classification specialist should review the status of all inmates at the completion of sanctions served for serious rule violations.
Housing and program assignments for each transgender or intersex inmate shall be reassessed at least twice each year to review any threats experienced by the inmate (28 CFR 115.42).
509.6.2 STAFF REQUESTED REVIEW At any point during an inmate’s incarceration, a staff member may request a review of the inmate’s classification. The reason for the review, the review itself and the outcome of the review shall

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/05/11, All Rights Reserved. Published with permission by Weld County Sheriff's Office

Inmate Classification - 3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-9 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 5
Weld County Sheriff's Office
Weld County SO Detention Policy and Procedure Manual
Inmate Classification
EXHIBIT H-1
be documented in the inmate’s permanent file. Nothing in this section shall prohibit staff from immediately moving an inmate to another location in the facility based on exigent circumstances. Under such circumstances, the staff member moving the inmate must immediately document the action.
509.7 HOUSING ASSIGNMENTS Inmates should be housed based upon the following criteria:
• Classification level • Age • Sex • Legal status (e.g., pretrial or sentenced) • Need for protection or separation • Criminal sophistication • Any other criteria identified by the Detentions Captain
509.7.1 SEPARATION Male and female inmates shall be housed to ensure visual and physical separation (CRS § 17-26-106). Civil detainees and pretrial inmates should be housed separately from sentenced inmates when there is sufficient room (CRS § 17-26-105).
509.8 CLASSIFICATION SPACE ALLOCATION The classification plan depends on the ability of the facility to physically separate different classes of inmates. To ensure that allocated space meets the current population needs, the Detentions Captain or the authorized designee should periodically meet with representatives of the classification staff to discuss the fixed resources (e.g., cells, dorms, dayrooms).
509.9 SINGLE-OCCUPANCY CELLS Single-occupancy cells may be used to house the following categories of inmates:
• Maximum security • Restrictive housing • Medical condition or disabilities (upon consultation with medical staff and the
availability of medical beds) • Mental condition (upon consultation with mental health staff and the availability of
mental health beds) • Sexual predators

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/05/11, All Rights Reserved. Published with permission by Weld County Sheriff's Office

Inmate Classification - 4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-9 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 5
Weld County Sheriff's Office
Weld County SO Detention Policy and Procedure Manual
Inmate Classification
EXHIBIT H-1
• Any inmate with an elevated risk of being taken advantage, mistreated or becoming a victim of sexual abuse or harassment
• Any other condition of status for single-occupancy housing
The classification supervisor shall notify the Detentions Captain or the authorized designee when single-occupancy cells are not available for housing the above described inmates. In such cases, after comprehensive interdisciplinary discussion, inmates are idenfified in the above categories who may be safely housed together.
509.10 PREA CONSIDERATIONS Housing, bed, work and program assignments should be made to separate inmates at high risk of being sexually victimized from those at high risk of being sexually abusive (28 CFR 115.42). Inmates identified as being at high risk for sexually aggressive behavior will be monitored and housed in an area that will minimize the risk to other inmates and staff. All inmates identified as being at risk of victimization shall be monitored and housed in an area to minimize the risk to their safety. However, inmates at high risk for sexual victimization shall not be placed in involuntary protective custody unless an assessment of all available alternatives has been made and it has been determined that there is no available alternative means of separation from likely abusers (28 CFR 115.43).
Housing and program assignments of a transgender or intersex inmate shall include individualized consideration for the inmate’s health and safety and any related supervisory, management or facility security concerns. A transgender or intersex inmate’s views with respect to his/her own safety shall be given serious consideration.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex inmates shall not be placed in dedicated facilities, units or wings solely on the basis of such identification or status, unless such placement is pursuant to a consent decree, legal settlement or legal judgment (28 CFR 115.42).
509.11 STAFF TRAINING IN CLASSIFICATION Classification staff should receive training specific to inmate classification before being assigned primary classification duties. Individuals not specifically trained in inmate classification may work in classification provided that they are under the immediate supervision of a trained and qualified staff member.

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/05/11, All Rights Reserved. Published with permission by Weld County Sheriff's Office

Inmate Classification - 5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-10 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6

Policy
502

Weld County Sheriff's Office
Weld County SO Detention Policy and Procedure Manual

Inmate Reception

EXHIBIT H-2

502.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The Weld County Sheriff's Office has a legal and methodical process for the reception of arrestees into this facility. This policy establishes guidelines for security needs, the classification process, identification of medical/mental health issues and the seizure and storage of personal property.

502.2 POLICY This office shall use the following standardized policies when receiving arrestees to be booked into this facility. This is to ensure security within the facility and that arrestees are properly booked and afforded their applicable rights.

502.3 PRE-BOOKING SCREENING All arrestees shall be screened prior to booking to ensure the arrestee is medically acceptable for admission and that all arrest or commitment paperwork is present to qualify the arrestee for booking. Required paperwork may include the following:
(a) Arrest reports
(b) Bonding information sheet (c) Probable cause affidavits
(d) Warrants or court orders
(e) Victim notification information
(f) Special needs related to religious practices, such as diet, clothing and appearance (see the Religious Programs Policy)
(g) Accommodation requests related to disabilities (see the Inmates with Disabilities Policy)
(h) Booking screening form including information regarding suicidal statements or actions, medical and mental health information and prisoner security concerns
Any discrepancies or missing paperwork should be resolved before accepting the arrestee for booking from the arresting or transporting agency.
Prior to accepting custody of an arrestee who claims to have been arrested due to a mistake of the arrestee’s true identity or an arrestee who claims that identity theft led to the issuance of a warrant in the arrestee’s name, staff shall make reasonable efforts to investigate the arrestee’s claim of identity fraud or mistake. Staff shall notify a supervisor when an arrestee makes a claim of mistaken identity or identity fraud.

502.3.1 IMMIGRATION DETAINERS It is the policy of the Weld County Sheriff's Office to hold individuals for Immigration and Customs Enforcement based on probable cause that a criminal act has been committed.

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/05/11, All Rights Reserved. Published with permission by Weld County Sheriff's Office

Inmate Reception - 1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-10 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 6
Weld County Sheriff's Office
Weld County SO Detention Policy and Procedure Manual
Inmate Reception
EXHIBIT H-2
502.3.2 MUNICIPAL COURT HOLDS During the booking process, the booking deputy shall verify whether the arrestee has any municipal court holds. If an active hold is found, notifications shall be made in accordance with CRS § 13-10-111.5 as follows:
(a) If the arrestee does not receive a personal recognizance bond on the arresting charge, notification must be made to the applicable municipal court as soon as practicable.
(b) If the sole basis of the arrestee’s detention is the municipal court hold, notification must be made within four hours.
Arrestees will be released pursuant to any standing orders issued by the municipal court (CRS § 13-10-111.5).
502.3.3 IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION When an inmate is serving a MITT with a schedule release date, there will be an event created, ICE notification of a mitt release (ICEN) and that event will be schedule 48 hours prior to the release date. Dayshift Booking Technician will run the ICEN report for the next 48 hours then notify ICE of any pending releases via email. On Fridays the Dayshift Booking Technician will run the ICEN report until the next business day (If a holiday(s) occurs within the week, then run the list through the following business day) and notify ICE of any pending releases.
When a pre-trial defendant is booked in and ICE has determined probable cause to believe the defendant is illegally in the United States as evidenced by I-247A, the Booking Technician will enter an event, Ice Notification of a Release Event (ICER). ICER is for all unscheduled releases.
(a) In all cases where ICE has sent an Immigration Detainer - Notice of Action, and the inmate is being processed for an unscheduled release from the facility, an email notification will be sent to ICE at the earliest possible time in the release process. In addition, the top right corner of the document will be checked to see if the letters “HP” (High Priority) are present. If they are present, a phone call will be made by a Booking Supervisor to the ICE supervisor advising them of the pending release, so they can attempt to arrive at the facility prior to completion of the release process to transfer custody.
(b) If ICE does not respond for a custodial transfer, an ICE No Response/No Pick up (ICNO) event will be entered.
(c) The Sheriff's Office WILL NOT hold for ICE administrative charges only. As with section 502.3.3(a), ICE will still be notified of an inmate being processed for release with administrative charges to allow ICE to make a determination.

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/05/11, All Rights Reserved. Published with permission by Weld County Sheriff's Office

Inmate Reception - 2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-10 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 6
Weld County Sheriff's Office
Weld County SO Detention Policy and Procedure Manual
Inmate Reception
EXHIBIT H-2
502.3.4 SERVICING DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WARRANT An ICE Charge (CICE) may only be entered when a Booking Technician receives the following three properly serviced documents:
(a) Immigration Detainer-Notice of Action (I-247A) (b) A Warrant for Arrest of Alien (I-200) OR Warrant of Removal/Deportation (I-205) which
have been personally served by an Immigration Officer upon the inmate. (c) WCSO Federal Bonding Information sheet WITH probable cause narrative section
completed which must be reviewed by a Corporal or Sergeant.
When the Booking Technician has received all three pieces of paperwork on an inmate, the Booking Technician can enter an ICE Charge (CICE) in JMS for the inmate. The charge will be set out for 365 days.
When the Booking Technician has received all three pieces of paperwork on an inmate and when the inmate has timed served, the Booking Technician can enter an ICE Transport (TICE) in JMS for the inmate. The transport event will be set for 48 hours. When the transport event has been set, the Booking Technician will notify the ICE Supervisor via telephone. In the note section of the event, document date, time and person notified.
502.3.5 WELD COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE INMATE/PRISONER DETAINER An inmate still serving MITT time on their sentence can be released to ICE. The following conditions will be met:
(a) The inmate has less than five (5) days left on their sentence (including weekends and holidays)
(b) A WCSO Inmate/Prisoner Detainer Form is completed by a Booking Corporal and/or Detention Sergeant.
(c) An Out with Other Agency (OWOA) event will be entered into JMS for the inmate that coincides with that inmate's Timed Served (TSER) date event in JMS. In the note section of the OWOA, information that the inmate was released to ICE on a WCSO Inmate/Prisoner Detainer will be entered.
502.4 SEARCHES BEFORE ADMISSION All arrestees and their property shall be searched for contraband by the booking deputy before being accepted for booking. All contraband items will be handled according to facility policy. Items of possible evidentiary value may be turned over to the arresting or transporting agency for processing or processed according to the facility's rules for handling evidence. Approved personal property and clothing will be accepted. Items not approved will be returned to the arresting or transporting agency prior to the arrestee being accepted for booking. A description of the items returned to or confiscated by the arresting or transporting agency, shall be documented on the arrestee’s booking record.

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/05/11, All Rights Reserved. Published with permission by Weld County Sheriff's Office

Inmate Reception - 3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-10 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 6
Weld County Sheriff's Office
Weld County SO Detention Policy and Procedure Manual
Inmate Reception
EXHIBIT H-2
Searches or inventory of wallets, purses and closed containers is not allowed for civil detainees or emergency commitments.
Strip searches shall be conducted in accordance with the Searches Policy.
502.5 ADMISSION PROCESS A unique booking number shall be obtained specific to the current admission. Photographs and fingerprints shall be taken.
The admission process should include an attempt to gather a comprehensive record of each arrestee, including the following:
• Identifying information, including name and any known aliases or monikers • Current or last known address and telephone number • Date and time of arrest • Date and time of admission • Name, rank, agency and signature of the arresting deputy and transporting deputy,
if different • Health insurance information • Legal authority for confinement, including specific charges, arrest warrant information
and court of jurisdiction • Sex • Age • Date and place of birth • Race • Height and weight • Occupation and current or most recent employment • Preferred emergency contact including name, address, telephone number and
relationship to inmate • Driver license number and state where issued, state identification number or passport
number • Social Security number • Additional information concerning special custody requirements or special needs • Local, state and federal criminal history records • Photographs, fingerprints and notation of any marks or physical characteristics unique
to the inmate, such as scars, birthmarks, deformities or tattoos • Medical, dental and mental health screening records, including suicide risk

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/05/11, All Rights Reserved. Published with permission by Weld County Sheriff's Office

Inmate Reception - 4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-10 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 6
Weld County Sheriff's Office
Weld County SO Detention Policy and Procedure Manual

Inmate Reception

• Religious preference

EXHIBIT H-2

• Primary language

• Need for interpreter for court process

• Inventory of all personal property including clothing, jewelry and money

• A record of personal telephone calls made at the time of booking or the time the opportunity was provided to place calls if the calls were not made

Inventoried items of rare or unusual value should be brought to the attention of a supervisor. The inmate’s signature should be obtained on the booking record and on any forms used to record money and property.

502.5.1 LEGAL BASIS FOR DETENTION Arrestees admitted to the facility shall be notified of the official charge for their detention or legal basis of confinement in a language they understand.

502.6 TRANSITION FROM RECEPTION TO GENERAL POPULATION The Shift Sergeant is responsible to ensure only arrestees who qualify are placed into general population cells or housing. Those who will not be placed into general population include:
(a) Arrestees who are eligible for release following citation.
(b) Arrestees who are intoxicated or under the influence of any chemical substance.
(c) Arrestees who are arranging bail. They shall be permitted a reasonable period of time, at the discretion of the Shift Sergeant, to make telephone calls before being placed in general population.
(d) Any arrestee prior to classification.

502.6.1 MONITORING FOR SIGNS OF INTOXICATION AND WITHDRAWAL Staff shall respond promptly to medical symptoms presented by inmates to lessen the risk of a lifethreatening medical emergency and to promote the safety and security of all persons in the facility.
Custody staff should remain alert to signs of drug and alcohol overdose and withdrawal, which include, but are not limited to, sweating, nausea, abdominal cramps, anxiety, agitation, tremors, hallucinations, rapid breathing and generalized aches and pains. Any staff member who suspects that an inmate may be suffering from overdose or experiencing withdrawal symptoms shall promptly notify appropriate medical staff and the supervisor.

502.6.2 INMATE SEPARATION Inmates should be kept separate from the general population during the admission process. Newly admitted inmates should be separated according to the facility’s classification plan.

502.7 INMATE PROPERTY CONTROL All property received from inmates at the time of booking shall be sealed in property bags designated for this purpose.

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/05/11, All Rights Reserved. Published with permission by Weld County Sheriff's Office

Inmate Reception - 5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-10 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 6
Weld County Sheriff's Office
Weld County SO Detention Policy and Procedure Manual
Inmate Reception
EXHIBIT H-2
Excess personal clothing or property should be returned to the arresting or transporting agency for disposition.
502.7.1 VERIFICATION OF INMATE’S MONEY All paper currency belonging to the inmate and retained by the booking deputy shall be verified in front of the inmate, placed in an envelope and sealed. The booking deputy and when possible, the inmate should initial the envelope. A second deputy should witness and initial if the inmate is unavalible.
Negotiable checks or other instruments and foreign currency should be sealed in the inmates small property bag with wallet, coinage and jewelry.
502.7.2 PROPERTY STORAGE All inmate property should be stored in a secure storage area. Only authorized personnel may access the storage area and only for the purpose of depositing or retrieving property, or to conduct duly authorized work, including maintenance and other duties as directed by their supervisor.
502.8 INMATE TELEPHONE CALLS Every inmate, whether adult or juvenile, detained in this facility shall be entitled to access the inmate telephone system as soon as practicable upon being admitted and no later than three hours after intake unless combative. Access may be of a duration that reasonably allows the inmate to make necessary arrangements for matters that he/she may be unable to complete as a result of being arrested.
There is no obligation for the custody staff to make a telephone call on an inmate’s behalf or allow inmates to use agency extensions. Staff may use independent judgment and allow use of an agency extension in cases of a verified emergency after checking for any applicable protection orders.
502.8.1 TELEPHONE CALL PROCEDURES All inmate phone access will be provided on the inmate telephone system except in the case of court proceedings or verifiable emergencies where not prohibited by an active protection order.
Calls between the inmate and his/her attorney shall be deemed confidential and shall not be monitored, eavesdropped upon or recorded.
502.8.2 ONGOING TELEPHONE ACCESS Ongoing telephone access for inmates who are housed at this facility will be in accordance with the Inmate Telephone Access Policy.
502.9 SHOWERING AND CLOTHING EXCHANGE Inmates should be allowed shower access as soon as practicable upon being moved to an intake unit or within 24 hours if housed in booking.

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/05/11, All Rights Reserved. Published with permission by Weld County Sheriff's Office

Inmate Reception - 6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-11 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3

Policy
701

Weld County Sheriff's Office
Weld County SO Detention Policy and Procedure Manual

Inmate Screening and Evaluations

EXHIBIT H-3

701.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this policy is to provide guidance for the screening and evaluation of inmates for health care issues.
This policy is limited to screening and evaluations. Subsequent care and treatment is addressed in the Availability and Standards of Care Policy and other related policies.

701.2 POLICY The Office recognizes that inmates should be screened when they initially arrive at the detention facility and evaluated at regular intervals so all inmates receive adequate health care.

701.3 INMATES NOT ACCEPTED INTO THE FACILITY No person with a reasonably identified condition that appears to need immediate medical care or other disqualifying condition identified by the Health Care Adviser should be accepted at the facility without a medical clearance from a qualified health care provider.

701.4 INITIAL SCREENINGS Trained staff shall perform a health care screening on each inmate upon his/her initial arrival at the detention facility. This includes those transferred from another facility. Findings shall be recorded on the appropriate form. The screening will include the name of the screener, date and time of the screening, and information and observations regarding (6 CCR 1010-13:14.2):
(a) Current and historical medical, dental and mental health care information, including any allergies.
(b) Current and historical use of medication, alcohol and drugs, including types, amounts and frequency used, method of use, date or time of last use and history of any problems after ceasing use.
(c) Suicide risk and mental health assessment.
(d) Pregnancy and associated issues.
(e) Communicable disease risk assessment.
(f) Special needs that would significantly impair an inmate’s ability to adapt to the detention facility environment, such as a learning disability.
(g) Other health care information as designated by the Responsible Physician or Health Care Adviser.
(h) Observations of the following:
1. Behavior/conduct

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/05/11, All Rights Reserved. Published with permission by Weld County Sheriff's Office

Inmate Screening and Evaluations - 1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-11 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Weld County Sheriff's Office
Weld County SO Detention Policy and Procedure Manual
Inmate Screening and Evaluations
EXHIBIT H-3
2. Signs of impaired consciousness or other health issues (e.g., coughing, sweating, tremors, sleepiness, trouble breathing)
3. Body deformities and body movements 4. Skin (injuries, rashes, needle marks, sores) 5. Other observations as designated by the Health Care Adviser

Inmates who refuse to answer these questions should be placed under observation until the screening can be completed or until sufficient information is obtained to allow the staff to make appropriate decisions concerning housing and care.
701.5 TRANSFER SCREENINGS A qualified health care provider shall review the health record of any inmate transferred into this facility within 12 hours.
Inmates transferred without a health record or initial screening from any other facility shall be screened when they initially arrive at this detention facility.
701.6 HEALTH EVALUATIONS Qualified health care professionals shall complete an in-person health evaluation of each inmate within 30 days after arrival at the detention facility and annually thereafter if the inmate is still in custody (6 CCR 1010-13:14.3). Health evaluations should include:
(a) Review of the inmate’s initial screening information. (b) Collection of updated or additional data to complete the person’s health care and
immunization history. (c) Medical examination. (d) Mental health assessment. (e) Dental examination. (f) Tests to detect tuberculosis and other communicable diseases. (g) A record of the inmate’s height, weight, pulse, blood pressure and temperature. (h) Other tests and examination as determined by the Health Care Adviser. (i) Initiation of care when appropriate, as well any associated treatment plan. (j) Identification of health issues that may affect decisions regarding housing, program
participation or other conditions of confinement. (k) The Responsible Physician should review any evaluations conducted by other
qualified health care professionals.

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/05/11, All Rights Reserved. Published with permission by Weld County Sheriff's Office

Inmate Screening and Evaluations - 2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-11 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
Weld County Sheriff's Office
Weld County SO Detention Policy and Procedure Manual
Inmate Screening and Evaluations
EXHIBIT H-3
Any findings that may significantly impact the health, safety or welfare of the inmate or others should be communicated to the Detentions Captain or the authorized designee. Health care needs that may affect housing, program participation or other conditions of confinement shall be communicated and documented.

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/05/11, All Rights Reserved. Published with permission by Weld County Sheriff's Office

Inmate Screening and Evaluations - 3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-12 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5

Policy
505

Weld County Sheriff's Office
Weld County SO Detention Policy and Procedure Manual

Special Management Inmates

EXHIBIT H-4

505.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE Inmates who pose a heightened risk to themselves or others require special management, including frequent interaction and increased supervision by staff. Interaction with special management inmates is essential to maintaining a safe, secure and humane environment. This policy establishes guidelines and procedures for interacting with special management inmates in the custody of the Weld County Sheriff's Office.
505.1.1 DEFINITIONS Definitions related to this policy include:
Restrictive Housing - The physical separation of an inmate who poses an ongoing imminent threat to the safety and security of the facility, to others or themselves. This separation includes inmates requiring separation for medical or mental health reasons.
Special Security Housing - A level of custody either requested and approved or required for an inmate’s protection from others.
Special management inmate - An inmate who is either classified as restrictive housing or special security. Classification as a special management inmate is a non-punitive classification.
505.2 POLICY This office shall provide for the secure and separated housing of any special management inmate, but shall not impose more deprivation of privileges than is necessary to obtain the objective of protecting the inmate, staff or the public (6 CCR 1010-13:8.11).

505.3 SPECIAL MANAGEMENT INMATES HOUSING CRITERIA The safety and security of this facility is dependent on a classification system that identifies inmates who pose a risk to themselves or to others. Inmates who pose such a risk must be promptly and appropriately separated from the general inmate population until such time that they no longer pose a risk. Staff must have the ability to promptly separate these inmates pending further review.
Individuals who may be classified as special management inmates include, but are not limited to, inmates who are:
• In special security housing or court-imposed separation. • Exhibiting mental health concerns. • An escape threat. • A serious violence threat. • Known to have gang affiliation. • A known management problem. • A suicide risk.

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/05/11, All Rights Reserved. Published with permission by Weld County Sheriff's Office

Special Management Inmates - 1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-12 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 5
Weld County Sheriff's Office
Weld County SO Detention Policy and Procedure Manual

Special Management Inmates
• Exhibiting medical issues. • Physically impaired.

EXHIBIT H-4

505.4 CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRING RESTRICTIVE HOUSING Inmates will generally be assigned to restrictive housing through the classification process. Deputies have the authority to immediately place any inmate into restrictive housing when it reasonably appears necessary to protect the inmate, others or the safety and security of the facility.
Reasons that an inmate may be placed into immediate restrictive housing include the following:
(a) The inmate requests protection or is under court-ordered protection, or the staff has determined that the inmate requires protection.
(b) There is reason to believe the inmate poses a danger to him/herself or others.
(c) The inmate poses an escape risk.
(d) The inmate requires immediate mental health evaluation and medical housing is not reasonably available.
(e) The inmate is charged with a disciplinary infraction and is awaiting a disciplinary hearing and in the judgment of the staff, the inmate could become disruptive or dangerous if left in general population.
(f) Other circumstances where, in the judgment of the staff, the inmate may pose a threat to him/herself, others or the security of the facility.
505.4.1 REVIEW PROCESS The Shift Sergeant shall be notified when any inmate is placed in restrictive housing and shall be informed of the circumstances leading to the order to separate. Within 72 hours of the inmate being placed into restrictive housing, the Shift Sergeant or the authorized designee must review the circumstances surrounding the separation to determine which of the following actions shall be taken:
(a) The inmate is designated for special management status.
(b) The inmate is designated for special security housing.
(c) The inmate remains separated pending a disciplinary hearing.
(d) The inmate is returned to general inmate population.
(e) The inmate is designated for disciplinary segregation.
505.5 SPECIAL SECURITY HOUSING During the review process the Shift Sergeant shall clearly document the reason an inmate should or should not be placed into special security housing.

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/05/11, All Rights Reserved. Published with permission by Weld County Sheriff's Office

Special Management Inmates - 2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-12 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 5
Weld County Sheriff's Office
Weld County SO Detention Policy and Procedure Manual
Special Management Inmates
EXHIBIT H-4
Inmates who are in special security housing shall receive all services and programs that are available to inmates in general population and that are deemed a privilege. Any deviation from allowing usually authorized items or activities shall be documented.
505.6 MAINTENANCE OF PROGRAMS AND SERVICES Special Management Inmates who are classified for housing in restrictive housing shall, at a minimum, be allowed access to programs and services including, but not limited to,
• Inmate telephones • Personal and Professional visitation • Educational programming appropriate to the inmate classification • Commissary services • Library and law library services • Social services • Faith-based guidance, counseling and religious services • Recreation activities and exercise • Nothing in this policy prohibits changing the delivery of programs or services to separated inmates when reasonably necessary to provide for the safety and security of other inmates and staff.
505.7 REVIEW OF STATUS The Shift Sergeant shall review the status of all inmates assigned to Special Management Housing every 30 days. The review should include information about these inmates to determine whether their status in restrictive housing is still warranted.
An inmate may appeal classification to special management housing to the Lieutenant once per review period.
If other reasonable housing options exist that will provide for the safety of the inmate and the facility, the inmate should be moved off of special management status. In reviewing an alternative housing decision for an inmate in Special Security Housing, the safety of the inmate shall receive the utmost consideration.
505.8 HEALTH EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS After notification from staff that an inmate is being placed on special management status, the Shift Sergeant shall ensure that the following occurs:
(a) Required mental health or medical staff are notified to assess the inmate’s health care needs and coordinate appropriate housing assignments.

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/05/11, All Rights Reserved. Published with permission by Weld County Sheriff's Office

Special Management Inmates - 3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-12 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 5
Weld County Sheriff's Office
Weld County SO Detention Policy and Procedure Manual
Special Management Inmates
EXHIBIT H-4
(b) If contraindications or special accommodations are noted, the mental health or medical staff shall inform the Shift Sergeant and coordinate the appropriate plan for the inmate based on the safety needs of the facility and the needs of the inmate.
505.8.1 HEALTH AND CONSIDERATIONS Due to the possibility of self-inflicted injury and depression during periods of separation, health evaluations should include notations of any bruises and other trauma markings and the qualified health care professional’s comments regarding the inmate’s attitude and outlook.
(a) Unless medical attention is needed more frequently, each inmate in separation should receive a visit by medical staff a minimum of three times a week. A medical assessment should be documented in the inmate’s medical file.
(b) Unless required more frequently due to the presence of a serious mental illness, a qualified mental health professional shall conduct weekly rounds for a mental health evaluation.
When an inmate is classified as a special management inmate due to the presence of a serious mental health disorder and is placed in a restrictive housing setting, staff shall document this in the inmate's file and notify the qualified health care professional. When an inmate is expected to remain in restrictive housing for more than 30 days, the qualified health care professional shall be notified.
505.9 SAFETY CHECKS A staff member shall conduct a face-to-face safety check of all special management inmates, at least once every 15 minutes on an irregular schedule. Inmates who are violent, have mental health problems or demonstrate behavior that is easily identified as out of the ordinary or bizarre in nature may require more frequent checks.
Inmates who are at risk of suicide shall be under continuous observation until seen by a qualified health care professional. Subsequent supervision routines should be in accordance with orders provided by the qualified health care professional.
All management, program staff and qualified health care professional visits shall be documented in the appropriate records and logs and retained in accordance with established records retention schedules.
505.10 LOG PROCEDURES Electronic observation logs should be completed per Post Orders.
Log entries should be entered promptly and provide sufficient detail to adequately reflect the events of the day for future reference.
The date and time of the observation or incident and the name and identification number of the staff member making the log entry shall be included on each entry.

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/05/11, All Rights Reserved. Published with permission by Weld County Sheriff's Office

Special Management Inmates - 4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-12 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 5
Weld County Sheriff's Office
Weld County SO Detention Policy and Procedure Manual
Special Management Inmates
EXHIBIT H-4
Supervisors should periodically review the logs during the shift to ensure the quality of the logs and that minimum requirements are met.
505.10.1 LOG INSPECTION AND ARCHIVAL OF LOGS The Shift Sergeant shall review and evaluate the logs and pass any significant incidents via the chain of command to the Detentions Captain for review.
The logs will be retained by the Office in accordance with established records retention schedules, but in no case for less than one year.

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/05/11, All Rights Reserved. Published with permission by Weld County Sheriff's Office

Special Management Inmates - 5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-13 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4

Policy
707

Weld County Sheriff's Office
Weld County SO Detention Policy and Procedure Manual

EXHIBIT H-5
Suicide Prevention and Intervention
707.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This policy is intended to reduce the risk of inmate suicide through risk identification and appropriate intervention.

707.2 POLICY The Office will develop a suicide prevention plan to identify and monitor potentially suicidal inmates and appropriately intervene.

707.3 MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES Any member who identifies an inmate who displays suicidal signs shall immediately notify a supervisor. The inmate shall be personally monitored until a mental health or suicide staffing committee approves another form of monitoring. Inmates should be staffed when:
• An inmate has attempted suicide in any correctional facility at any time in their life.
• An inmate has attempted suicide within the last year.
• An inmate reports active thoughts of suicide.
• An inmate will not commit to informing staff if they were to have thoughts of suicide in the future while in custody at the Weld County Jail.
• Any inmate whose suicide history in totality causes concern following assessment with the inmate and/or research completed. The following should be considered: o Number of suicide attempts in inmate’s life. o Thoughts or threats of suicide within the last year. o Previous suicide watches in WCSO custody or other institutions. o Any other combination of lifetime risk factors.

707.4 SUICIDE PREVENTION PLAN The Detentions Captain or the authorized designee will develop a suicide prevention plan. The plan should address:
(a) Initial screening and follow-up assessments. (b) Referrals to mental health care providers as soon as practicable. (c) An evaluation and treatment responsibility to include strategies to address underlying
causes and heightened risk opportunities. (d) Training (initial and annual training on risk identification, prevention and intervention). (e) Monitoring inmates at risk for suicide. (f) Appropriate cells, clothing and effects for inmates at risk for suicide. (g) Communication between members and care providers.

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/05/11, All Rights Reserved. Published with permission by Weld County Sheriff's Office

Suicide Prevention and Intervention - 1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-13 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Weld County Sheriff's Office
Weld County SO Detention Policy and Procedure Manual

Suicide Prevention and Intervention

(h) Responses to suicide attempts, including first-aid measures.

EXHIBIT H-5

(i) Notification requirements.

(j) Documentation requirements.

(k) Care for affected members and inmates.

(l) Facility inspections for physical or operational modifications that may reduce the risk of inmate suicide.

The suicide prevention plan should be developed in conjunction with the Health Care Adviser, Detentions Captain and staff, treatment providers and local public health agencies, as appropriate.
707.5 PRECAUTIONARY STEPS There are three levels of suicide watch (Level 1 - high risk, Level 2 – moderate risk and Level 3 – minimal risk) that correlate to the inmate’s assessed risk of suicide. The following inmates should be placed on a Level One Suicide watch:
• Any inmate who is expressing suicidal thoughts.
• Following an active suicide attempt in this facility.
The following inmates should be placed on a minimum of a Level Two Suicide watch:
• Any inmate who has a history of recent (within the last six months) self-injurious behavior when such behavior was done with the intent of killing themselves or if they could have killed themselves as a result of the behavior.
• Any inmate who will not commit to informing staff if there were to have thoughts of suicide in the future while in custody at the Weld County Jail. o Initial staffing placement only. Follow-up staffing decisions will be based upon the totality of the circumstances.
If and when possible, inmates placed on suicide watch shall be housed in a cell that has been designed to be suicide resistant. Prior to placing a suicidal inmate in any cell, staff should carefully inspect the area for objects that may pose a threat to the inmate’s safety.
Physical restraints should only be used as a last resort. The decision to use or discontinue use of restraints should be made in consultation with the [ShiftCommander].
Until the inmate is evaluated by a mental health professional or suicide staffing committee, the inmate shall be subject to frequent direct visual observation.
An inmate will be removed from suicide watch when a mental health professional determines the inmate no longer poses a threat to him/herself. The inmate shall be referred to classification for an appropriate housing assignment when necessary.
Once assigned and moved to the appropriate housing unit, the inmate shall be assigned to a cell as close to the Detentions Deputy’s desk providing for the best line of sight from the desk. The fact

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/05/11, All Rights Reserved. Published with permission by Weld County Sheriff's Office

Suicide Prevention and Intervention - 2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-13 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Weld County Sheriff's Office
Weld County SO Detention Policy and Procedure Manual
Suicide Prevention and Intervention
EXHIBIT H-5
that the inmate was on suicide watch shall be communicated by mental health staff to Detentions Deputies wherever an inmate is assigned. Once the mental health professional assigned to the inmate believes that post suicide watch follow-up is no longer warranted, they will communicate this to the Detentions Deputies who can then house the inmate as appropriate within the housing unit or another based on classification and facility needs.
707.6 OBSERVATION LOGS Observation logs shall be maintained for all inmates on suicide watch at least once per day. Each staff member who is required to observe the inmate shall make notations in the observation log, documenting the time of observation and a brief description of the inmate’s behavior.
707.7 DOCUMENTATION Detentions staff shall document any time an inmate’s suicide watch status and housing assignment changes and the reasons for not providing clothing, personal and issued items as applicable. The inmate’s health care record should be updated to reflect all contacts, treatment and any other relevant information.
707.8 SUICIDE ATTEMPTS Any suicide attempt is a medical emergency and life-saving measures shall be initiated by a trained staff member until he/she is relieved by a qualified health care professional, who shall initiate appropriate medical evaluation and intervention. The Responsible Physician or the authorized designee should be notified in situations when referral and transportation to an emergency room or local hospital is required. Staff should take action to preserve and collect evidence as necessary.
707.8.1 SUICIDES All deaths resulting from suicide should be investigated and documented in accordance with the Reporting In-Custody Deaths Policy.
707.9 DEBRIEFING Any suicide or attempted suicide requires a staff debriefing. Information will be communicated to the oncoming Shift Sergeant and staff to apprise them of the incident and actions taken with regard to the incident. Such debriefing will be appropriately documented and shall be reviewed by administration, security and mental health staff. Stress management debriefings for involved members and inmates to discuss post-incident thoughts and reactions should be provided.

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/05/11, All Rights Reserved. Published with permission by Weld County Sheriff's Office

Suicide Prevention and Intervention - 3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-13 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
Weld County Sheriff's Office
Weld County SO Detention Policy and Procedure Manual
Suicide Prevention and Intervention
EXHIBIT H-5
707.10 TRANSFER AND RELEASE Ongoing care of suicidal inmates during transfers and after release should be considered. When an inmate is being transferred for observation or treatment, a staff member should complete the necessary forms (i.e., M-1 Emergency Mental Illness Report and Application), documenting the reasons why the inmate is believed to be suicidal. The completed forms should accompany the released inmate to the designated facility.
When an inmate with a history or risk of suicide is transferred, the transporting deputy should ensure that the suicide threat or other danger is clearly communicated to personnel at the receiving facility.
Inmates who are at risk for suicide and are being released should be encouraged to work with local or area mental health resources and shall be provided with the appropriate contact information.

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/05/11, All Rights Reserved. Published with permission by Weld County Sheriff's Office

Suicide Prevention and Intervention - 4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-14 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2

Policy
703

Weld County Sheriff's Office
Weld County SO Detention Policy and Procedure Manual

Special Care Inmates

EXHIBIT H-6

703.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this policy is to address inmates who may have special care needs.

703.2 POLICY It is the policy of the Office for custody staff to work cooperatively with qualified health care professionals to ensure that inmates with special care needs are provided adequate care.

703.3 CHRONIC DISEASE CARE The Health Care Adviser should work with the Responsible Physician and the Detentions Captain to develop programs or procedures to assist inmates with chronic diseases. The Health Care Adviser should identify the common chronic diseases that are seen at the detention facility and the inmates who would benefit from special care. The Health Care Adviser should maintain a list of these inmates to facilitate the implementation of any treatment plan and follow-up care.

703.4 COORDINATED CARE The Health Care Adviser should work with the Responsible Physician and the Detentions Captain to ensure inmates with special care needs, including inmates who have physical or developmental disabilities or who are in need of geriatric or other ongoing care, receive coordinated health care. Inmates with special care needs should be identified so custody staff can assist as necessary with any treatment plans.

703.5 DETOXIFICATION Inmates experiencing symptoms of drug or alcohol withdrawal should be promptly seen by a qualified health care professional or transferred to an off-site emergency facility for treatment.
Detoxification will be provided within the facility only under the direct supervision of the Responsible Physician or the authorized designee. If the Responsible Physician or the authorized designee is not present at the detention facility, detoxification shall be conducted in an appropriate medical facility or community detoxification center under appropriate security conditions.

703.6 SUBSTANCE ABUSE CARE Inmates should receive substance abuse education or counseling and be referred for treatment as necessary. Inmates who are pregnant and who at the time of admission to the jail disclose, through the medical screening process, involvement in an active and verifiable medication assisted treatment program shall be continued on the medication regimen associated with that medication assisted program after review and approval by the medical provider.

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/05/11, All Rights Reserved. Published with permission by Weld County Sheriff's Office

Special Care Inmates - 1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 60-14 Filed 05/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Weld County Sheriff's Office
Weld County SO Detention Policy and Procedure Manual
Special Care Inmates
EXHIBIT H-6
703.7 HOSPICE AND END-OF-LIFE CARE The Responsible Physician should alert the Detentions Captain any time it is determined that an inmate is terminally ill or approaching the end of his/her life. Hospice care that meets contemporary standards of decency, including counseling and pain management, should be provided.
The Detentions Captain or the authorized designee should:
(a) Alert the Sheriff and the appropriate prosecuting authority to seek the inmate’s release from custody when that appears a reasonable option.
(b) Facilitate visitation and increase visitation opportunities based upon detention facility resources.
(c) Facilitate the inmate’s execution of advance directives, such as a living will, health care power of attorney and a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order.

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/05/11, All Rights Reserved. Published with permission by Weld County Sheriff's Office

Special Care Inmates - 2

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 62 Filed 05/21/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: 20-cv-977-PAB THOMAS CARRANZA, et al.,
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FORTHWITH HEARING REGARDING DEFENDANT’S NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT’S PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiffs Thomas Carranza and all other similarly situated medically vulnerable inmates housed at the Weld County Jail hereby request a forthwith hearing on Defendant’s non-compliance with the Court’s May 11, 2020 preliminary injunction.
Certificate of Conferral: Plaintiffs’ counsel conferred with Matthew Hegarty, counsel for Defendant Reams, who opposes the relief requested herein.
Introduction Defendant’s newly enacted policies and procedures to identify and protect medically vulnerable inmates at the Weld County Jail (WCJ) do not comply with this Court’s order and are insufficient to reasonably mitigate the risk of COVID-19 to medically vulnerable inmates. Indeed, as currently conceived, Defendant’s plans will increase the likelihood of infection for some medically vulnerable inmates. The risk to the Plaintiff class is real and extreme. Just yesterday, Anthony Griego, a medically vulnerable inmate at WCJ, lost his battle with COVID-19 and died in his cell. Plaintiffs
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 62 Filed 05/21/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 11
ask the Court to set a forthwith hearing on whether the changes implemented by WCJ comply with this Court’s May 11, 2020 preliminary injunction and are sufficient to satisfy the Court that WCJ has mitigated the risk to medically vulnerable inmates.
Procedural History Following a full-day evidentiary hearing, the Court entered a straightforward order granting Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction and requiring Defendant to institute specific policies or procedures at the Weld County Jail regarding the following: 1. A process to compile a list of all medically vulnerable inmates at the Weld County Jail; 2. A policy ensuring social distancing of medically vulnerable inmates housed at the jail to the “maximum extent possible”; 3. A procedure for single-celling or, if single-celling is not possible, otherwise socially distancing medically vulnerable inmates during the intake/transition process; 4. Policies requiring enhanced sanitation procedures; 5. A plan to obtain sufficient masks for inmates; and 6. A policy providing increased monitoring of medically vulnerable inmates. The Court’s preliminary injunction remains in effect through at least August 9, 2020. (ECF No. 55 at 39.) On May 18, 2020, Defendant filed his “Notice of Complete Compliance with This Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order” explaining the new policies and procedures implemented at the Weld County Jail. (ECF No. 60.) Plaintiffs acknowledge that Defendant’s policies and procedures regarding enhanced sanitation and masks for inmates comply with the standards set forth by the Court. However, Defendant’s actions fall short of full compliance with other provisions of the Court’s preliminary
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 62 Filed 05/21/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 11
injunction. Defendant’s submission also fails to provide Plaintiffs and the Court with sufficient information to explain or justify Defendant’s refusal to single-cell medically vulnerable inmates in the face of the Court’s order requiring Sheriff Reams to do so if possible. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request a forthwith hearing.
Legal Standard In granting the preliminary injunction, the Court found Plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claim and that they had shown a significant risk of probable irreparable harm. (ECF No. 55 at 25-26.) The Court ordered Defendant to implement specific policies and procedures and now has the inherent authority to ensure its order is being followed. See United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 293 (1947) (discussing court’s inherent authority to enforce duly entered injunction). Given the serious health risk faced by medically vulnerable inmates each moment that Defendant remains in non-compliance with the Court’s order, Plaintiffs seek a forthwith hearing regarding non-compliance.
Analysis Defendant’s response to the Court’s preliminary injunction order is deficient in at least three respects: (1) conditions for medically vulnerable inmates in the housing pods; (2) how medically vulnerable inmates are housed in the intake/transition unit; and (3) the procedures utilized to identify medically vulnerable inmates. Each of these deficiencies will be discussed in turn below. A. Housing Conditions for the Medically Vulnerable The Court ordered Defendant to enact a policy “ensuring that, to the maximum extent possible considering the Jail’s physical layout, population level, and classification needs, medically vulnerable inmates are ‘socially distanced’ from other inmates housed in the Jail. If social distancing is
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 62 Filed 05/21/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 11
effectively impossible for some or all of the medically vulnerable inmates in the Jail, such policy may be supplemented by housing medically vulnerable inmates together in one or more pods.” (ECF No. 55.)
At the time the preliminary injunction was entered, the Court lacked the data necessary to determine to what degree medically vulnerable inmates could be single-celled or otherwise socially distanced. That is, because Defendant had not identified how many medically vulnerable inmates were at the WCJ, it was impossible to ascertain whether medically vulnerable inmates could be housed in single cells. Even without this data, the Court noted the Jail was “well below half of its maximum capacity, indicating that there is space within the Jail to increase the amount of physical distancing for at least some inmates.” (ECF No. 55 at 31.)
Per Defendant’s Notice, WCJ’s screening process identified 89 inmates (less than 20% of the WCJ population) who qualify as medically vulnerable. (ECF No. 60 at 3.) Despite the limited number of medically vulnerable inmates, Defendant found it “very difficult” to create a policy that would satisfy the Court’s preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 60-8 ¶ 16(g).) Defendant chose to ignore the Court’s structure and instead prioritized what he apparently regarded as a need to reduce inmate movement and realignment, and to avoid inconvenience to the WCJ staff. (Id. ¶ 16.)
The Court entered a very specific order. Defendant was to adopt a policy that either: (1) allowed all medically vulnerable inmates the opportunity to socially distance from others; or (2) if social distancing from others was “effectively impossible,” Defendant was to adopt a policy that housed medically vulnerable inmates in a pod with only other medically vulnerable inmates. (ECF No. 55.) Defendant admits his chosen policy falls short of complying with this order. A forthwith hearing is necessary for Plaintiffs to challenge Sheriff Reams’s conclusion that his adopted policy
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 62 Filed 05/21/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 11
was the “only option,” and that complying with the Court’s order would have been impossible. (ECF No. 60-8 ¶ 16(i) (emphasis in original).)
One point worth noting: Throughout these proceedings, Defendant has acknowledged the availability of unused cells at WCJ. Plaintiffs’ counsel and their expert observed multiple empty cells in each unit during their inspections of the facility and noted that medically vulnerable inmates were housed with several cellmates in those same pods that had empty cells. Defendant claims it is “impossible” to fill all of the cells on the one hand, while on the other hand claims he would need 812 additional housing units and 48-72 additional deputies to house medically vulnerable inmates separately from other inmates. (ECF No. 60-8 ¶ 16.) Interestingly, during recent conferral conversations, Defendant refused to provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with specific data regarding the number of unused cells and the units in which those empty cells are located. The Court should require Defendant to provide this information and explain why there are empty cells at WCJ while medically vulnerable inmates are housed in units with non-vulnerable inmates and not given adequate space to socially distance from others. A forthwith hearing allows Plaintiffs to test Defendant’s conclusory assertions of impossibility.
Should Sheriff Reams convince the Court that it is “effectively impossible” to comply with the Court’s order regarding social distancing, and that the jail may continue housing medically vulnerable people in the same cells together inside a pod with other non-medically vulnerable people, Plaintiffs expert will testify that – especially without testing medically vulnerable inmates – this plan is likely to increase the danger of infection for some medically vulnerable inmates. As Dr. FrancoParedes explained in his declaration and during testimony, a large number of people infected with COVID-19 are asymptomatic. Without testing medically vulnerable people before moving them into
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 62 Filed 05/21/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 11
a cell with other medically vulnerable people, Weld County Jail predictably risks spreading the virus between medically vulnerable people who face a substantial risk of serious illness or death by the virus.
Given changes that Dr. Franco-Peredes can testify to regarding test availability—a subject that has also received widespread media attention this week—there is no longer any excuse for failure to test. While there may have been some doubt as to the availability of testing at the time of the preliminary injunction hearing, recent developments have made clear that testing is now widely available. Whereas, at the time of the hearing, tests were in short supply and competition for tests was fierce, Colorado now has the supplies and capacity to test everyone who needs to get tested, and free testing is currently available to all essential workers and any symptomatic Coloradoans.1 Dr. FrancoPeredes has confirmed and, if the Court should grant a hearing, would be available to testify, that WCJ could promptly obtain the supplies to test all inmates in the Jail if it desired. Yet, Defendant has only performed 26 COVID-19 tests to date2 and does not assert any intention to test medically vulnerable inmates before moving them into cells with other medically vulnerable inmates. Failure to take this minimal protective action, particularly in light of Defendant’s failure to follow the Court’s
1 See, e.g, FORT COLLINS COLORADOAN, “All symptomatic Coloradans, essential workers can get coronavirus test as capacity ramps up,” May 18, 2020, available at https://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2020/05/18/coronavirus-colorado-state-covid-19-testingcapacity-ramps-up-where-tested/5213901002/; COLORADO PUBLIC RADIO, “Polis: Any Coloradan with Coronavirus Symptoms Should Get Tested,” May 18, 2020, available at https://www.cpr.org/2020/05/18/anyone-with-covid-19-symptoms-should-get-tested-polisannounces/. 2 As of the April 30, 2020 hearing, WCJ had tested 22 inmates for COVID-19. Pl.’s Ex. 8. Since then, despite a sea change in the availability of tests, WCJ has conducted only 4 COVID-19 tests on inmates. The lack of testing calls into question the veracity of Defendant’s assertion that the COVID19 outbreak inside WCJ has stabilized.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 62 Filed 05/21/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 11
directive on social distancing, poses a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm to medically vulnerable inmates.
B. Vulnerable Inmates in the Intake/Transition Unit The Court’s preliminary injunction ordered Defendant to enact a procedure for medically vulnerable inmates to be “single-celled or otherwise socially distanced, to the maximum extent possible considering the Jail’s physical layout and classification needs, while housed in the transition unit.” (ECF No. 55 at 38.) The Court found this relief was necessary because “the Jail places more than one inmate in a cell in the transition unit, and there is no evidence that new inmates are given a COVID-19 test.” (Id. at 34.) Defendant’s adopted policy specifically allows more than one medically vulnerable inmate to be housed together in the intake unit, while still not requiring either of the inmates be tested for COVID-19. (ECF No. 60 at 8.) This policy defies the letter and the spirit of the Court’s order. As noted above, many individuals are asymptomatic for COVID-19; thus Defendant’s plan places medically vulnerable inmates at grave risk of harm. Particularly given that infection Dr. FrancoParedes will testify that only single-celling medically vulnerable inmates through intake and then ensuring the inmate and any potential cellmates have twice tested negative for COVID-19, can reasonably mitigate the risk of infection to medically vulnerable inmates. Based on information from Weld County, it appears that, on an average day, they see 10-20 bookings in to the jail and only about 20% of those individuals – or 2 to 4 people – will qualify as medically vulnerable and require singlecelling for at least 14 days. Defendant’s submission to the Court does not explain why, given its current jail capacity, single celling of these few inmates is not possible. Further, to the extent this Court concludes that WCJ may house medically vulnerable inmates with others during
7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 62 Filed 05/21/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 11
intake/transition, WCJ should be required to implement a policy that requires testing of medically vulnerable inmates before they are housed together in a cell during the intake/transition process. As discussed above, Dr. Franco-Paredes would testify to the availability of adequate testing supplies.
Despite adopting a policy that falls short of the Court’s order, Defendant again claims his adopted policy was the “only option.” (ECF No. 60-8 ¶ 21 (emphasis in original).) Plaintiffs should be afforded the opportunity to test this assertion at a compliance hearing.
C. Deficiencies in Defendant’s Screening Protocol Plaintiffs and their counsel are concerned that Defendant’s adopted screening protocol is not properly identifying all medically vulnerable inmates. As one example, Plaintiffs’ counsel has been in contact with an inmate who suffers from asthma and is dependent on an inhaler. Yet, he was not identified as medically vulnerable based on Defendant’s screening criteria. As Dr. Franco-Paredes will testify, the screening questions are inadequate to reasonably ensure that the screener will uncover whether the inmate is medically vulnerable. For instance, inmates are asked whether they are “immunocompromised” or have a “chronic lung disease” in the absence of additional information explaining to them what types of diagnoses and medical conditions fall within these categories. Inmates have varying education levels and life experiences, and may not have responded accurately to the questioning. Offering a non-exhaustive list of common conditions that fall within chronic lung disease or serious heart conditions and questioning inmates about current medications and recent hospitalizations would allow WCJ to identify and protect all inmates who are medically vulnerable. As such, Plaintiffs ask the Court to hold a hearing during which they can explore whether Defendant’s screening tool adequately identifies all medically vulnerable inmates, or whether
8

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 62 Filed 05/21/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 11
different language should be utilized during the screening process to ensure all inmate who are medically vulnerable are identified as such.
Conclusion Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff class remain at risk of imminent harm in the WCJ. Medically vulnerable inmates continue to be held in conditions that do not allow for social distancing and in units with non-medically vulnerable inmates. Despite widespread availability of COVID-19 tests, WCJ is not testing medically vulnerable inmates before housing them in a cell with another person (who also has not been tested). For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs request a forthwith hearing on Defendant’s compliance with the Court’s preliminary injunction order, with Defendant required to provide detailed information on the availability of empty cells in each unit housing medically vulnerable individuals. Dated: May 21, 2020
Respectfully submitted,
s/Jamie Hughes Hubbard Jamie Hughes Hubbard Stimson Stancil LaBranche Hubbard, LLC 1652 Downing Street Denver, CO 80218 Tel/Fax: 720-869-8909 Email: hubbard@sslhlaw.com and Andy McNulty Michael P. Fairhurst David A. Lane Darold W. Killmer Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP 1543 Champa Street, Suite 400
9

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 62 Filed 05/21/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 11
Denver, CO 80202 Tel: 303-571-1000 Fax: 303-571-1001 amcnulty@kln-law.com mfairhurst@kln-law.com dlane@kln-law.com dkillmer@kln-law.com
and
David G. Maxted Maxted Law LLC 1543 Champa Street, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 Tel: 720-717-0877 Fax: 720-500-1251 dave@maxtedlaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs Carranza, Martinez, Propes, Ward and Hunter
Mark Silverstein Rebecca T. Wallace Sara R. Neel AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF COLORADO 303 E. 17th Avenue, Suite 350 Denver, Colorado 80203 (720) 402-3114 msilverstein@aclu-co.org rtwallace@aclu-co.org sneel@aclu-co.org
and
Daniel D. Williams Lauren E. Groth HUTCHINSON BLACK AND COOK, LLC 921 Walnut Street, Suite 200 Boulder, Colorado 80302 (303) 442-6514 Williams@hbcboulder.com Groth@hbcboulder.com
10

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 62 Filed 05/21/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 11
In cooperation with the ACLU Foundation of Colorado Counsel for Plaintiffs Barnum and Lewis

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 21st day of May, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FORTHWITH HEARING REGARDING DEFENDANT’S NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT’S PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification to the following counsel.

Matthew Hegarty Andrew Ringel John Peters HALL & EVANS LLC 1001 17th Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 hegartym@hallevans.com ringel@hallevans.com jpeters@hallevans.com

s/Holli Baker Holli Baker, Paralegal

11

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 63 Filed 05/27/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: 20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH
THOMAS CARRANZA, et al.
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPORT TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FORTHWITH HEARING [ECF # 62]
Plaintiffs, through undersigned counsel, respectively submit their Supplemental Support to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Forthwith Hearing Regarding Defendant’s Non-Compliance with the Court’s Preliminary Injunction (ECF Doc. 62) as follows:
Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Forthwith Hearing Regarding Defendant’s NonCompliance with the Court’s Preliminary Injunction on May 21, 2020, stating that Defendant’s newly enacted policies and procedures to identify and protect medically vulnerable inmates at the Weld County Jail (WCJ) do not comply with this Court’s order and are insufficient to reasonably mitigate the risk of COVID-19 to medically vulnerable inmates. Indeed, as currently conceived, Defendant’s plans will increase the likelihood of infection for some medically vulnerable inmates.
Dr. Carlos Franco-Paredes provided his supplemental declaration, attached as Exhibit 1, in support of Plaintiffs’ motion and Plaintiffs’ respectfully submit it in support of their motion for forthwith hearing.
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 63 Filed 05/27/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4

Dated: May 27, 2020

Respectfully submitted,
s/ Darold W. Killmer Andy McNulty Michael P. Fairhurst David A. Lane Darold W. Killmer KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP 1543 Champa St. Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 571-1000 (303) 571-1001 Facsimile amcnulty@kln-law.com mfairhurst@kln-law.com dlane@kln-law.com dkillmer@kn-law.com
and
David G. Maxted Maxted Law LLC 1543 Champa Street Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 720-717-0877 Fax: 720-500-1251 dave@maxtedlaw.com
and
Jamie Hughes Hubbard STIMSON STANCIL LABRANCHE HUBBARD, LLC Phone: 720.689.8909 Email: hubbard@sslhlaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs Carranza, Martinez, Propes, Ward and Hunter
Mark Silverstein Rebecca T. Wallace Sara R. Neel AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF COLORADO 303 E. 17th Avenue, Suite 350 Denver, Colorado 80203 (720) 402-3114
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 63 Filed 05/27/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
msilverstein@aclu-co.org rtwallace@aclu-co.org sneel@aclu-co.org and Daniel D. Williams Lauren E. Groth HUTCHINSON BLACK AND COOK, LLC 921 Walnut Street, Suite 200 Boulder, Colorado 80302 (303) 442-6514 Williams@hbcboulder.com Groth@hbcboulder.com In cooperation with the ACLU Foundation of Colorado Counsel for Plaintiffs Barnum and Lewis
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 63 Filed 05/27/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 27, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPORT TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FORTHWITH HEARING [ECF # 62] with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification to the following counsel.

Matthew Hegarty Andrew Ringel John Peters HALL & EVANS LLC 1001 17th Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 hegartym@hallevans.com ringel@hallevans.com jpeters@hallevans.com

/s/ Charlotte Bocquin Scull Paralegal – Killmer Lane & Newman, LLP

4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 63-1 Filed 05/27/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 63-1 Filed 05/27/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: 20-cv-00977-PAB-MEH
THOMAS CARRANZA, et al.
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons,
v.
STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT DECLARATION OF DR. CARLOS FRANCO-PAREDES
This declaration supplements my declaration of April 24, 2020. I reviewed the following additional case documents related to this declaration: Defendant’s Notice of Complete Compliance with the Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order and Exhibits F, F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, F5 and H. Based on my review of these documents, together with the jail inspections and documents relied upon for my April 24 declaration, it is my opinion that certain aspects of the compliance plan for Weld County Jail (WCJ) will place medically vulnerable inmates at a substantial risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19. Of great concern, some of WCJ’s plan has the potential to increase the risk of infection by medically vulnerable inmates compared to the policies and procedures in place during my last inspection of the WCJ on April 24. Background Information
1. Widespread testing is now available in Colorado. It is my opinion that if WCJ wished to perform universal testing given its current jail population of less than 500 inmates, it could acquire those tests – likely free – by requesting them from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). I have contacted colleagues at CDPHE. Weld County Public Health can request swabs and testing would be performed at the State PH Lab. The contact person is Matt Bauer who is the regional epidemiologist at Weld County Public Health Department and who can coordinate ordering supplies.
2. The reported numbers of individuals with the virus in the Weld County Jail is likely a substantial undercount. As I noted in my April 24 declaration, the Weld County Jail appeared to be focusing its testing only on symptomatic inmates and the jail was not testing mildly symptomatic inmates, inmates who had been in contact with positive inmates or staff, or medically vulnerable inmates. Based on the recent data provided by WCJ, it appears that – despite the availability of widespread testing in Colorado – WCJ’s testing procedures remain
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 63-1 Filed 05/27/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 6
unchanged. As of April 30, WCJ reported that it had tested 23 inmates for COVID-19, and that 10 of those inmates (43% percent) had tested positive. There were still seven inmates in custody at the time who had tested positive for the virus. During my April 24 inspection, I spoke with several inmates who had symptoms consistent with COVID-19, but who had not been tested and who were housed in small cells with other inmates where social distancing was not possible. According to the WCJ’s recent filing, as of May 17, WCJ had only performed three additional tests, so that total inmates tested as of that date is 26. With so little testing in the wake of the outbreak at WCJ, it is a very high probability that there are inmates who have COVID-19 in the jail—both symptomatic and asymptomatic –housed in small cells with others and who remain unable to practice social distancing.
3. The risk of new sources of infection coming into the Weld County Jail from arrestees remains high given that Weld County is a hotspot for the virus in Colorado, with some of the largest and deadliest outbreaks in the state occurring in Weld County. Weld County has the fifth highest rate of COVID-19 infection in the state, surpassing Denver, Arapahoe, Adams and Jefferson County. Weld County also has the fourth highest death rate. These trends appear to be driven by community-based outbreaks, including at the JBS meat packing plant, where at least 366 employees have tested positive for COVID-19 and at least 8 have died. The plant is currently open despite that many workers have not been tested. Clearly the outbreak is not under control in that plant, and it is highly probable that many of the untested employees have COVID-19. Additionally, several Weld County nursing homes have seen outbreaks. Centennial Health Care Center in Greely has had at least 22 residents deaths out of the 46 confirmed cases to date. In the midst of these outbreaks, Weld County has substantially reopened its economy, which occurred despite opposition from the Weld County Health Director who recently left his position. Based on data and reports from other jurisdictions, it is my opinion that the relatively high infection rate in Weld County combined with the reopening of the economy substantially increases the risk that some new arrestees booked into the Weld County Jail will have COVID-19, whether or not they are symptomatic for it.
Weld County Jail’s May 18, 2020 plan for increased protection of medically vulnerable inmates:
Weld County Jail’s plan for increased protection of medically vulnerable inmates, as documented in the filing of May 18, reflects several substantial improvements, most notably WCJ’s plan to mandate employees to completely disinfect common spaces prior to use of those spaces by medically vulnerable inmates. Additionally, it is commendable that the jail has guaranteed the provision to inmates of either disposable masks, which will be replaced every three days, or the use of face cloth masks which will be laundered regularly.
However, the following aspects of plan leave medically vulnerable inmates at grave risk of serious illness or death:
1. The plan allows two untested medically vulnerable inmates to be housed together at intake. This arrangement would pose a substantial risk of infection of a medically vulnerable inmates at any jail, but most particularly in Weld County given the breadth of the community outbreak.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 63-1 Filed 05/27/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 6
2. Rather than prioritizing single cell housing in general population for the 89 identified medically vulnerable inmates, the plan allows untested medically vulnerable inmates to be housed in cells together. Of greatest concern, the plan calls for untested medically vulnerable inmates to be transferred into the cell of another untested medically vulnerable inmate. The plan places no limit on the number of medically vulnerable inmates who can be housed in a cell together.
3. Despite the availability of testing, the plan does not call for universal testing, prevalence testing, testing of all new arrestees or even testing of medically vulnerable inmates.
4. The screening questions for medically vulnerable inmates are inadequate to ensure identification of all medically vulnerable inmates. Some questions, such as whether or not a person is “immunocompromised,” are both medically technical and overly general to ensure that people with varying degrees of education and medical knowledge will be able to answer accurately.
My most significant concerns with this plan relate to lack of social distancing for medically vulnerable inmates. Without social distancing, medically vulnerable inmates face a substantial risk of becoming unnecessarily infected with COVID-19 and becoming seriously ill and/or dying. As I discussed in my April 24 declaration, medically vulnerable inmates are safest from COVID-19 when not in custody, and should be released whenever possible. If they must remain in custody, social distancing at all times – particularly when testing is not occurring – is essential. During my April 24 inspection of the WCJ, I noted several empty cells in all units that I visited, while medically vulnerable inmates were in small cells with 1-3 other cellmates. With only 89 identified medically vulnerable inmates, it is my opinion that the jail will protect the most lives by focusing on single celling all medically vulnerable inmates.
Sheriff Reams asserts that single celling medically vulnerable inmates will negatively impact non-medically vulnerable inmates who would presumably have more densely populated cells. While densely populated cells certainly create a risk of spread in that cell – particularly without universal testing – it is my opinion that protecting medically vulnerable inmates by single celling them is the most important way (short of reduced population) to avoid serious illness and death from COVID-19, even if that means housing more non-medically vulnerable inmates in a cell together. Increasing the risk to younger, healthier inmates while decreasing the risk for medically vulnerable inmates is an appropriate harm-reduction measure.
One important note is that I agree with Sheriff Reams’ assessment that the creation of a pod of medically vulnerable inmates would pose an increased risk of harm to those inmates. Medically vulnerable inmates become infected more easily, spread the virus more easily, and get seriously sick and die more easily. Thus, if COVID-19 were to find its way into a pod of all medically vulnerable inmates, the effects could be devastating. For example, the experience in nursing homes and skilled nursing facilities has demonstrated that transferring asymptomatic or presymptomatic persons to a new unit or pod without viral testing facilitated the spread to these new units and ultimately spread the outbreak to new areas inside these facilities1. Particularly
1 Gandhi M, Yokoe DS, Havlir DV. Asymptomatic transmission, the Achilles’ heel of current strategies to control Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2020. April 24. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMe2009758.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 63-1 Filed 05/27/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 6
given that WCJ is not even testing medically vulnerable inmates, there is a substantial risk that any pod of medically vulnerable inmates will suffer from a COVID-19 infection.
Recommendations
1. Substantially increase testing for COVID-19 in the Weld County Jail. It is my opinion that WCJ could likely acquire sufficient tests to do universal testing, to continually test people upon intake, and to continually test anyone who shows any symptoms of COVID-19. WCJ should acquire tests to the greatest extent possible and prioritize use of the tests as follows: a. Test all new admission to the jail before they encounter other people. b. Test all medically vulnerable inmates. c. Test any inmate with one or more symptoms consistent with COVID-19. d. Perform prevalence testing. e. Perform universal testing. f. For each person who tests negative, only presume the person is negative if the person is tested again a week after the first test and is still negative.
2. Improve screening tool to reasonably ensure identification of all medically vulnerable inmates. Rather than only generally asking inmates whether they have “chronic lung disease,” a “serious heart condition,” “liver disease,” or are “immunocompromised,” the screening questions should also list the most common conditions within these general categories. For instance, as CDC’s website discusses, cancer, bone marrow transplant, and the use of certain medications are conditions that would render someone “immunocompromised” and therefore medically vulnerable.2 CDC provides more detailed information about what kinds of common conditions place people at high risk on their website.3 Conditions listed on the CDC website can provide guideposts to creating a more effective screening tool. Additionally, based on my experience interviewing patients, including inmates, it is important to ask patients about their current medications and recent hospitalizations, which can reveal information about serious medical conditions (such as cancer) that render the person high risk.
3. All medically vulnerable inmates should be single celled and tested through intake and transition. There is a substantial risk that housing medically vulnerable inmates together at intake and transition will lead to infecting some medically vulnerable inmates with COVID-19. Testing of all individuals, or at least medically vulnerable individuals, at intake will decrease this risk. However, we are seeing a 30% false negative rate in COVID-19 testing. If there is to be any housing of medically vulnerable inmates together at any time during intake or transition, it should only be after both inmates have tested negative twice over a week’s time during which time each inmate has been single celled and able to practice social distancing.
2 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/immunocompromised.html 3 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/groups-at-higher-risk.html#liver-disease
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 63-1 Filed 05/27/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 6
4. Medically vulnerable inmates should be prioritized for single cell in general population. For the reasons discussed above, single celling medically vulnerable inmates throughout their incarceration should be prioritized even if that leads to some population density increase for non-medically vulnerable inmates. To the extent that WCJ truly has no choice but to house medically vulnerable inmates together in a cell, it is imperative that each medically vulnerable inmate be cleared of COVID-19 through testing at least twice over a week’s period4,5.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the statements above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Date: May 27, 2020
______________________________ Carlos Franco-Paredes, MD, MPH, DTMH (Gorgas) Associate Professor of Medicine
4 Solis J, Franco-Paredes C, Henao-Martínez AF, Krsak M, Zimmer SM. Structural Vulnerability in the United States Revealed in Three Waves of Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020 May 7. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.20-0391. PMID: 32383432. 5 Krsak M, Henao-Martinez AF, Franco-Paredes C. Broader COVID-19 Testing in Correctional Facilities. N Engl J Med 2020;
5

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 64 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 16
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC THOMAS CARRANZA; JESUS MARTINEZ; RICHARD BARNUM; THOMAS LEWIS; MICHAEL WARD; COLBY PROPES; and CHAD HUNTER,
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION [ECF 2]
Defendant Sheriff Steven Reams (“Sheriff”), by and through counsel, Matthew J. Hegarty, Esq., Andrew D. Ringel, Esq., and John F. Peters, Esq., of Hall & Evans, L.L.C., now submits his Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification [ECF 2], as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs ask this Court to certify a class of inmates to address alleged deficiencies in the handling of COVID-19 by the Weld County Jail even though this Court has rejected the proposed class definition. The class also cannot readily be delineated, and injunctive relief for the class would be unworkable and unmanageable. Plaintiff, put forth multiple parties for class representatives, most of whom are no longer housed within the Jail and

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 64 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 16
thus no longer possess a stake in this case. Plaintiffs’ attempt at class certification does not meet the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 and must, therefore, be denied.
II. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit against the Sheriff in his official capacity and ask the Court to grant injunctive and declaratory relief to address contended deficiencies in the Weld County Sheriff’s Office’s (“WCSO”) response to COVID-19 in the Weld County Jail (“WCJ”). [See ECF 7 at 27-28; ECF 2 at 10-11]. Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of all “medically vulnerable” inmates, which Plaintiffs define broadly. [See ECF 2 at 3 (providing Plaintiffs’ proposed class definition)]. Notably, this Court adopted a separate, narrower definition of “medically vulnerable” in its Order partially granting and otherwise denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. [See ECF 55 at 5-6, 30, 37-38]. Plaintiffs Carranza, Martinez, Barnum, Lewis, and Ward were all pretrial detainees when this case was filed. [See ECF 7 at 7-9]. Of those five, only Martinez remains a pretrial detainee. Plaintiffs assert Plaintiff Propes pleaded guilty but was not sentenced. [ECF 7 at 10]. In fact, Mr. Propes was issued a court-ordered release on April 7, 2020, the day before the Complaint was filed. [See ECF 26-10 at 7].1 Plaintiff Hunter was serving a 90-day jail sentence when the Complaint was filed and Plaintiffs expected his release on April 26, 2020; he was in fact released on April 15, 2020. [Compare ECF 7 at 10 with ECF 26-10 at 9 and Third Suppl. Decl. of Matthew Turner, attached as Exh. A (release date of April 15, 2020)]. Mr. Barnum was released on bond on May 20, 2020. [Exh. A].
1 Mr. Propes was arrested on June 5, 2020, after he failed to appear for a hearing in connection with the charges respecting which he was released on April 7, 2020. He is currently housed in the WCJ pending state court judicial proceedings. [See Exh. A].
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 64 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 16
III. ARGUMENT For the below reasons, Plaintiffs failed to carry their burden under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, and this Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification [ECF 2]. A. Standard of Review “Put simply, before a district court certifies a class it must ensure that the requirements of Rule 23 are met.” Vallario v. Vandehey, 554 F.3d 1259, 1266 (10th Cir. 2009). Rule 23 allows for a civil action to be certified as a class action if, and only if, multiple requirements are all satisfied concurrently. First, (a) One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a). Second, and in addition to the requirements of Rule 23(a), Plaintiffs must also show the proposed class meets the requirements of one of the subsections of Rule 23(b). Here, Plaintiffs are moving for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2), which requires them to show the Sheriff as the party opposing the class “acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2). The parties seeking class certification bear “a strict burden of proof” to ensure each prerequisite is satisfied. Reed v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 1307, 1309 (10th Cir. 1988). This involves a “careful certification inquiry,” considering the facts of the particular matter at hand. Vallario, 554 F.3d at 1269 (citing Unger v. Amedisys Inc., 401 F.3d 316, 319 (5th Cir. 2005), and Trevizo v. Adams, 455 F.3d 1155, 1163 (10th Cir. 2006)). “The district
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 64 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 16
court must engage in its own ‘rigorous analysis’ of whether ‘the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied.’” Shook v. El Paso Cnty., 386 F.3d 963, 968 (10th Cir. 2004) (“Shook I”) (quoting Gen. Tel. Co. of the S.W. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982)). B. Plaintiffs Fail to Meet the Requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a).
1. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(1): Numerosity To establish numerosity, Plaintiffs must show “the class is so numerous as to make joinder impracticable.” Peterson v. Okla. City Housing Auth., 545 F.2d 1270, 1273 (10th Cir. 1976). Under Plaintiffs’ expansive proposed class which the Court rejected, 390 inmates, or 87%, of the WCJ population would be class members as of May 18, 2020. [See ECF 60 at 2-3 n.2]. In the interest of efficiency, the Sheriff acknowledges this number of potential class members. Regardless, Plaintiffs cannot shoulder the remainder of their burden to show any certification of Plaintiffs’ proposed class by the Court is appropriate. 2. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(2): Commonality Next, Plaintiffs must demonstrate “there are questions of law or fact common to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). “Rule 23(a)(2)’s commonality requirement ‘is easy to misread.’” Harrel’s LLC v. Chaparral Energy, LLC (Naylor Farms, Inc.), 923 F.3d 779, 789 (10th Cir. 2019) (quoting Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 349 (2011)). A plaintiff cannot just point to “a common contention”; rather, the “common contention ... must be of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution—which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350 (concluding class certification should be denied). “In other words, the focus of Rule 23(a)(2)’s commonality requirement
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 64 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 16
is not so much on whether there exist common questions, but rather on ‘the capacity of a classwide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.’” Harrel’s, 923 F.3d at 789 (quoting Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350).
However, as discussed at greater length below in connection with Rule 23(b)(2), Plaintiffs’ requested injunctive relief is incapable of resolving their claims “in one stroke” as the United States Supreme Court requires. Plaintiffs ask for an injunction applicable to the whole proposed class, comprising almost 90% of the WCJ population. But the constraints of housing assignments, classification, jail security, the WCJ’s physical plant, and other similar concerns, as this Court recognized in ECF 55, signal any injunctive relief must inevitably be tailored to unique considerations of each inmate and will not provide a classwide resolution. That is, Plaintiffs’ claims lack the “capacity ... to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.” Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350.
3. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(3): Typicality Plaintiffs must also establish typicality—their claims or defenses must be “typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). “Provided the claims of Named Plaintiffs and class members are based on the same legal or remedial theory, differing fact situations of the class members do not defeat typicality.” DG v. Devaughn, 594 F.3d 1188, 1198-99 (10th Cir. 2010). But Plaintiffs’ own claims defeat typicality because they contend different legal theories apply within the proposed class. Plaintiffs’ argument against the Sheriff is divided into two separate legal standards, one—Plaintiffs assert—applicable to pretrial detainees, and a second applicable to convicted inmates. [See ECF 1 at 32 n.62 (Plaintiffs’ argument); ECF 55 at 18 n.9 (Court’s
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 64 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 16
Order discussing the argument)]. While the Sheriff disagrees a separate standard exists for pretrial detainees’ jail condition claims [see ECF 26 at 16-17], Plaintiffs’ class certification burden requires Plaintiffs to explain how their asserted claims are “typical” when Plaintiffs themselves contend their proposed class contains divergent claims. In addition, as further discussed below regarding the named Plaintiffs’ appropriateness (or lack thereof) as class representatives, most of the named Plaintiffs have been released from custody and their claims are therefore moot. A moot claim, being jurisdictionally invalid, is inherently not “based on the same legal or remedial theory” as the live claim of a potential class member. Plaintiffs cannot satisfy their burden for typicality.
4. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(4): Class representatives and adequacy of representation Plaintiffs must also meet Rule 23(a)’s final requirement: the proposed class representatives must “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). The Sheriff has no reason to believe Plaintiffs’ class counsel are unable to prosecute this claim. Plaintiffs themselves, though, cannot serve as class representatives. Even if the first three requirements of Rule 23(a) were met (which they are not), Plaintiffs are not the proper representatives for the putative class. With only two exceptions, Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief are moot, as all named Plaintiffs except Martinez were released from the WCJ and Propes is back in.2 See Green v. Branson,
2 In ECF 37, the parties agreed the Sheriff “will not argue any mootness issue,” in any Response to ECF 2, “that is brought about solely by a proposed class representative being released from custody on or after the current response due date (April 28, 2020) and on or before the date the Sheriff’s Response to ECF 2 is filed.” [ECF 37 at 2]. In candor, the Sheriff does not contend this argument applies to Richard Barnum, but notes the Court can consider sua sponte whether it has subject matter jurisdiction.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 64 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 16
108 F.3d 1296, 1299-1300 (10th Cir. 1997) (inmate’s injunctive relief claim moot once inmate released from subject facility); Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 590 F.3d 1134, 1138 (10th Cir. 2009) (in general, suit brought as class action “‘must be dismissed for mootness when the personal claims of the named plaintiffs are satisfied and no class has been properly certified.’” (quoting Reed v. Heckler, 756 F.2d 779, 785 (10th Cir. 1985)); but cf. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 110 n.11 (1975) (because pretrial custody length “cannot be ascertained at the outset, and it may be ended at any time” for multiple reasons, existing pretrial detainees qualify as an exception to the mootness doctrine).
Martinez and Propes are currently being held as pretrial detainees.3 No other named Plaintiff is now in the WCJ, and no convicted inmate proposed as a class representative is within the WCJ as a convicted inmate. Plaintiffs’ claims as to convicted inmates are therefore moot and no class of such inmates can be certified. While Gerstein carved out a narrow mootness exception for pretrial detainees, it did not for convicted inmates. This distinction is sensible, as pretrial detainees can be released at any time for several reasons, but convicted inmates have known sentencing and release dates.
Plaintiffs here chose as their “convicted inmate” class representatives Mr. Propes, who was in fact released the day before the Complaint was filed, and Mr. Hunter, whom they expected would complete his sentence on April 26, 2020, before the Sheriff was even required to file a response to ECF 2. Having chosen inmates whose claims Plaintiffs
3 Plaintiffs neither filed a Fourteenth Amendment claim on behalf of Mr. Propes nor listed him as a representative for a putative class for any Fourteenth Amendment claim. See Ellsworth v. People, 987 P.2d 264, 266 (Colo. 1999) (“This rule makes it clear that the sentence is an essential component of a ‘judgment.’”).s
7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 64 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 16
knew would be moot, Plaintiffs cannot now ask the Court to resuscitate those claims via a class action. Cf. Vallario, 554 F.3d at 1269-70 (cautioning district court against giving undue weight to claim plaintiffs cannot get judicial review of jail practices absent certifying requested class and to view their “bald assertions in this regard with some skepticism”).
Plaintiffs cannot meet the weighty requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(1)-(4), and the Court should deny certification of Plaintiffs’ proposed class on this basis alone. C. Plaintiffs Also Do Not Satisfy Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2)
Plaintiffs must also satisfy the standards of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2), their chosen section of Rule 23(b) [see ECF 2 at 2], but they do not. The Court should deny class certification based on Rule 23(b)(2) for at least three reasons. First, Plaintiffs have made essentially no argument as to Rule 23(b)(2). [See generally ECF 2]. Second, “difficulties in identifying characteristics of the class [] prevent plaintiffs from carrying their burden of showing that ‘final injunctive relief ... is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.’” Shook v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 543 F.3d 597, 612 (10th Cir. 2008) (“Shook II”) (quoting Rule 23(b)(2)). And third, Plaintiffs’ requested classwide relief is totally unmanageable.
Rule 23(b)(2) allows for class certification where “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). In Shook II, the Tenth Circuit analyzed this rule in a case highly similar to this one, reviewing denial of class certification for inmates in a Colorado jail claiming a Sheriff’s Office was deliberately indifferent and deprived the proposed class of adequate mental health treatment. 543 F.3d at 600-01. The appellate court explained
8

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 64 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 16
Rule 23(b)(2) creates two requirements. First, “the defendants’ actions or inactions must be based on grounds generally applicable to all class members.” Id. at 604. Second, “the final injunctive relief must be appropriate for the class as a whole. The rule therefore authorizes an inquiry into the relationship between the class, its injuries, and the relief sought, and we have interpreted the rule to require that a class must be ‘amenable to uniform group remedies.’” Id. (emphasis in original) (quoting Shook I, 386 F.3d at 973).
Rule 23(b)(2) “demands a certain cohesiveness among class members with respect to their injuries, the absence of which can preclude certification.” Id. This cohesiveness “has at least two aspects.” Initially, the class must be cohesive enough for a classwide injunction to “‘state its terms specifically; and describe in reasonable detail ... the act or acts restrained or required.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1). Moreover,
“[a] class action may not be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) if relief specifically tailored to each class member would be necessary to correct the allegedly wrongful conduct of the defendant.” So, if redressing the class members’ injuries requires time-consuming inquiry into individual circumstances or characteristics of class members or groups of class members, “the suit could become unmanageable and little value would be gained in proceeding as a class action.” ... In short, under Rule 23(b)(2) the class members’ injuries must be sufficiently similar that they can be addressed in a single injunction that need not differentiate between class members. Id. (quoting 5 Moore’s Fed. Prac. § 23.43(2)(b) at 23-195 (3d. ed. 2000) and Barnes v. Am. Tobacco Co., 161 F.3d 127, 143 (3d Cir. 1998)). Applying these holdings here reveals the inadequacy of Plaintiffs’ arguments and of Plaintiffs’ proposed class. First, Plaintiffs make virtually no argument on Rule 23(b)(2), and what little argument they do make does not satisfy their burden. Plaintiffs assert: 23(b)(2) is meant for civil rights cases; and the single injunction they seek would give “system-wide,
9

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 64 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 16
process-based relief…[and] would benefit all members of the proposed class – and falls squarely within the purview of Rule 23(b)(2) as a result.” [ECF 2, pp. 10-11]. Plaintiffs provide no further explanation for this conclusory argument.
Simply putting to paper a civil rights claim does not talismanically satisfy Rule 23(b)(3). As Shook II noted, “‘[t]he mere fact that a complaint alleges [violation of a civil right] does not in itself ensure’ that Rule 23’s requirements are satisfied.” Id. at 610 (quoting E. Tex. Motor Freight Sys. Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 405 (1977)). The bare assertion Rule 23(b)(2) is meant for civil rights claims similarly is not enough here.
Next, Plaintiffs offer only a cursory, conclusory argument about Rule 23(b)(2)’s two separate requirements. Plaintiffs do not explain either how the Sheriff here “has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), or why relief to the “class as a whole” would be appropriate here. Id. Plaintiffs have given this Court no guidance or support for how to make the “inquiry into the relationship between the class, its injuries, and the relief sought,” Shook II, 543 F.3d at 612, in order to determine whether the proposed class is “amenable to uniform group remedies.” Shook I, 386 F.3d at 973. Plaintiffs have in no way carried their burden for Rule 23(b)(2).
Second, “difficulties in identifying characteristics of the class [] prevent plaintiffs from carrying their burden of showing that ‘final injunctive relief ... is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.’” Shook II, 543 F.3d at 612 (quoting Rule 23(b)(2)). Plaintiffs already made this point better than the Sheriff ever could by means of their own filings. Merely ten days after the Court issued its Order after the preliminary injunction hearing, Plaintiffs already commenced arguing the WCSO is not adequately identifying
10

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 64 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 16
all inmates who are “medically vulnerable” as defined by the Court in ECF 55. [See ECF 62 at 8-9].4 In the context of a jail, the only way to identify whether inmates qualify as medically vulnerable is to ask them; the WCJ generally does not have pre-incarceration medical records. [See Transcript, Apr. 30, 2020, at 116:17-117:7 & 185:7-186:25]. But given Plaintiffs revealed their belief additional inmates are “medically vulnerable” beyond those identified by the WCSO and, in fact, beyond those identified by this Court, delineating the proposed class certainly will result in protracted litigation. Concerns with issues “associated with identifying characteristics of the class essential to determining whether class-wide relief is appropriate” constitute a legitimate basis to deny class certification due to “concern with how the Jail, not the court, would be able to identify members of the class ... in a way that would allow the Jail to comply with any relief obtained or the court to monitor the Jail's compliance with such relief.” Shook II, 543 F.3d at 612 (emphasis in original). Plaintiffs already showed the same concerns apply here.5
Finally, the classwide relief Plaintiffs seek implicates classification and housing determinations within the WCJ, as well as security issues, movement of inmates, the limitations of the WCJ’s physical plant, and various other considerations which “require[]
4 It bears repeating: the Court’s definition of “medically vulnerable” substantially differs from Plaintiffs’ definition of the proposed class. [Compare ECF 2 at 3 with ECF 55 at 5-6, 30, 37-38]. In fact, Plaintiffs’ definition is much broader which means more disputes about whether inmates were properly included in the class. See ECF 60-1 ¶ 20 (providing data from WCJ medical screening, conducted in response to this Court’s May 11, 2020, Order, as of May 13, 2020, 19% of WCJ population was medically vulnerable under this Court’s definition while 83% was medically vulnerable under Plaintiffs’ broader definition)].
5 Given the clear applicability of Shook II to this case, any reliance by Plaintiffs on Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2014), is quite misplaced. Likewise, Plaintiffs’ reliance on Kerns v. Spectralink Corp., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11711 (D. Colo July 1, 2003), is misplaced too because Kerns involved multiple defendants acting in common.
11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 64 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 16
time-consuming inquiry into individual circumstances or characteristics of class members or groups of class members, [so] ‘the suit could become unmanageable and little value would be gained in proceeding as a class action.’” Id. at 604 (quoting Barnes v. Am. Tobacco Co., 161 F.3d 127, 143 (3d Cir. 1998)). The Court’s Order requires the WCSO to socially distance “medically vulnerable” inmates “to the maximum extent possible considering the Jail’s physical layout, population level, and classification needs.” [ECF 55 at 38]. The Order also requires the WCSO to single-cell or socially distance “medically vulnerable” inmates in the intake unit “to the maximum extent possible considering the Jail’s physical layout and classification needs.” Id. This Order applies to medically vulnerable inmates, who, as defined by the Court, comprise less than 20% of the WCJ population. [See ECF 60 at 3 (current on May 18, 2020); ECF 60-1 ¶ 24]. Applying this or a similar order—as sought by Plaintiffs—to the proposed class would be unmanageable.
The proposed class, based on Plaintiffs’ definition of “medically vulnerable,” would include roughly 87% of the WCJ population, or 390 inmates. [See ECF 60 at 3-4 n.2 (current as of May 18, 2020); ECF 60-1 ¶ 25]. It will be effectively impossible to socially distance almost 90% of the WCJ population, so there will be ongoing litigation about what factors the WCSO considered in making individual housing decisions for inmates, relative to whether each such inmate was socially distanced “to the maximum extent possible”— an inherently fact-specific and individualized inquiry into the bases for a decision and available alternatives. Rather than classwide injunctive relief, certifying the proposed class will convert this Court effectively into a “super-warden” reviewer of all classification and housing assignment decisions at the WCJ. See Vallario, 554 F.3d at 1268
12

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 64 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 16
(“Respondents cannot demonstrate, without more, that ‘injunctive relief—relative to the class—is conceivable and manageable without embroiling’ the district court ‘in disputes over individualized situations and constantly shifting class contours.’” (quoting Shook II, 543 F.3d at 608)); see also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 548 (1979) (“[T]he operation of our correctional facilities is peculiarly the province of the Legislative and Executive Branches of our Government, not the Judicial.”); Peterson v. Shanks, 149 F.3d 1140, 1144 (10th Cir. 1998) (“[I]t is not the role of the federal judiciary to scrutinize and interfere with the daily operations of a state prison.”); Banning v. Looney, 213 F.2d 771, 771 (10th Cir. 1954) (federal courts have no power “to supervise prison administration or to interfere with the ordinary prison rules or regulations”).
The injunctive relief Plaintiffs seek—to socially distance nearly 90% of the WCJ— is totally unmanageable and completely inappropriate for classwide relief. Plaintiffs do not, and cannot, carry their burden under Rule 23(b)(2). D. In Any Event, This Court Already Repudiated Plaintiffs’ Proposed Class
Plaintiffs’ proposed class still includes all “medically vulnerable” inmates under Plaintiffs’ expansive definition. [See ECF 2, p. 3]. This Court has already rejected this definition of “medically vulnerable” in its Order. [Compare ECF 2 at 3 (giving Plaintiffs’ proposed definition of “medically vulnerable, to define the proposed class), with ECF 55 at 5-6, 30, 37-38 (adopting a narrower definition of “medically vulnerable” than Plaintiffs proposed)]. Since the Court issued its Order on May 11, 2020, Plaintiffs have not sought leave to amend either their Complaint or their Motion for Class Certification to modify their proposed class to be coterminous with the Court’s adopted, narrow definition of “medically
13

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 64 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 16
vulnerable.” Instead, Plaintiffs elected not to modify their request for the Court to certify the proposed class of “medically vulnerable” inmates as understood from ECF 2.6
Absolutely no reason exists for this Court to reverse course and adopt Plaintiffs’ proposed class definition. It would also be wholly improper for this Court to certify a class based on this Court’s definition of “medically vulnerable” in ECF 55, relief for which Plaintiffs neither asked nor offered support and to which the Sheriff has had no opportunity to specifically respond. Plaintiffs simply cannot meet their “strict burden of proof” for their proposed class. Reed, 849 F.2d at 1309. What’s more, “the district court does not ‘bear the burden of constructing subclasses. That burden is upon the [party seeking certification] and it is he who is required to submit proposals to the court.’” Shook II, 543 F.3d at 607 (quoting United States Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 408 (1980)). Plaintiffs made no argument in support of subclasses, let alone met their burden.
This Court must hold Plaintiffs to their burden, a burden Plaintiffs cannot meet for their proposed class. The Court chose not to address the propriety of certifying Plaintiffs’ proposed class in its prior Order, [see ECF 55 at 14 n.5], leaving the issue for another day. That day has come and Plaintiffs have not met their burden.
6 Further, the Court must disregard any argument or shift in strategy in Plaintiffs’ Reply to this Response attempting to adopt the Court’s definition of “medically vulnerable” to define Plaintiffs’ proposed class or arguing for subclasses, unless the Court also permits the Sheriff a surreply. E.g., Menge v. AT&T, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20008, at *2 (D. Colo. Feb. 13, 2013) (Brimmer, C.J.) (“Granting leave to file a surreply is part of the ‘supervision of litigation’ and thus falls within the discretion of the district court. However, the Court’s discretion is limited insofar as it may not deny the non-movant’s motion to file a surreply unless it disregards any new arguments in the moving party’s reply.”). In addition, allowing Plaintiffs to again metastasize their requested relief on Reply will represent yet another effort by Plaintiffs to “shift[] over the course of this case” the relief they seek, which is improper. [See ECF 55 at 30 n.16].
14

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 64 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 16
IV. CONCLUSION In the final analysis, this Court should deny certification of Plaintiffs’ proposed class because the Court already rejected Plaintiffs’ definition of “medically vulnerable” and because Plaintiffs cannot carry their burden. They do not meet the strict requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a), and their argument regarding Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) also is deficient. Other legitimate concerns about class definition and manageability also weigh heavily against certifying this class under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2); the relief Plaintiffs seek is not workable for the nearly 90% of the WCJ population to which they seek to apply it and will result in ongoing litigation over who is a proper class member. Granting Plaintiffs’ proposed class would also embroil this Court in individual, highly fact-specific classification and housing decisions as de facto supervisor of all such decisions at the WCJ, and otherwise render classwide relief unmanageable. As a result, Defendant Sheriff Steven Reams requests this Court enter an Order: denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification in its entirety, with prejudice, and entering all other relief deemed just. Dated and respectfully submitted this 8th day of June, 2020.
s/ Matthew J. Hegarty Matthew J. Hegarty, Esq. Andrew D. Ringel, Esq. John F. Peters, Esq. of HALL & EVANS, L.L.C. 1001 17th Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 T: (303) 628-3300 F: (303) 628-3368 hegartym@hallevans.com ringela@hallevans.com petersj@hallevans.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
15

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 64 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 16

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF)

I hereby certify that on this 8th day of June, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION [ECF 2] was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court which will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses:

Darold W. Killmer David A. Lane Andrew Joseph McNulty Michael Paul Fairhurst KILLMER LANE & NEWMAN LLP dkillmer@kln-law.com dlane@kln-law.com amcnulty@kln-law.com mfairhurst@kln-law.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Thomas Carranza, Jesus Martinez, Michael Ward, Colby Propes, and Chad Hunter

David George Maxted MAXTED LAW LLC dave@maxtedlaw.com
Jamie Hughes Hubbard STIMSON STANCIL LABRANCHE HUBBARD LLC hubbard@sslhlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Thomas Carranza, Jesus Martinez, Michael Ward, Colby Propes, and Chad Hunter

Daniel David Williams Lauren Elizabeth Groth HUTCHINSON BLACK & COOK, LLC williams@hbcboulder.com groth@hbcboulder.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Richard Barnum and Thomas Lewis

Mark Silverstein Rebecca Teitelbaum Wallace Sara R. Neel AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNIONDENVER msilverstein@aclu-co.org rtwallace@aclu-co.org sneel@aclu-co.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs Richard Barnum and Thomas Lewis

s/ Marlene Wilson, Legal Assistant to Matthew J. Hegarty, Esq. Andrew D. Ringel, Esq. John F. Peters, Esq. of HALL & EVANS, L.L.C. 1001 17th Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 T: (303) 628-3300 F: (303) 628-3368 hegartym@hallevans.com ringela@hallevans.com petersj@hallevans.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

16

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 64-1 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT A
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC THOMAS CARRANZA; JESUS MARTINEZ; RICHARD BARNUM; THOMAS LEWIS; MICHAEL WARD; COLBY PROPES; and CHAD HUNTER,
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF CAPTAIN MATTHEW TURNER
I, Captain Matthew Turner, being of lawful age and duly sworn under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, and for my Third Supplemental Declaration in the above-captioned case (“Declaration”), hereby declare as follows:
1. I have personal knowledge of the matters in this Declaration. 2. I currently serve as the Jail Captain for the Weld County Jail (“WCJ”) in the County of Weld, State of Colorado. I have served in this position for six months. 3. Before beginning my tenure as the WCSO Jail Captain on January 1, 2020, I was employed with the Weld County Sheriff’s Office (“WCSO”) for eight (8) prior years and served in many positions: Corrections Officer (what is now called Detentions Deputy) and separately earned my Peace Officer Standards Training (“POST”) certification; Public

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 64-1 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
EXHIBIT A
Information Officer Corporal; Detentions Division Shift Sergeant; Civil Unit Sergeant in charge of civil service processors, animal control, and victim advocates; and Detentions Division Lieutenant. Of my eight years working for the WCSO, I have spent a total of 5.5 years working in the WCJ.
4. I also earned an Associate of Arts degree in education from Front Range Community College in 2011 with a future goal to attain a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice from the University of Northern Colorado.
5. In my role as Jail Captain, I am familiar with how to access and review records from the WCJ showing what inmates are detained currently and were detained at earlier dates, the reasons for detention, when inmates were released from detention, and the reason for the release. All of this information is maintained by the WCSO in the normal course of operating the WCJ.
6. Regarding Plaintiffs Chad Hunter, Colby Propes, and Richard Barnum, I personally reviewed WCSO records to determine whether they were released from the WCJ, when they were released, and the reasons for the release. After completing this review, I located the following information:
a. Chad Hunter was released from the WCJ on April 15, 2020 to serve the remainder of his court-imposed sentence on home detention.
b. Colby Propes was released on bond from the WCJ on April 7, 2020, pending sentencing. He subsequently failed to appear for his sentencing hearing and was arrested on June 5, 2020, on warrants issued due to that failure to appear. He is now housed in the WCJ pending sentencing.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 64-1 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT A
c. Richard Barnum was released on bond from the WCJ on May 20, 2020. I understand the statements written in this Declaration are given under penalty of perjury. All of the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, the foregoing is true and correct. FURTHER DECLARANT SAYETH NAUGHT. Dated and executed this 8th day of June, 2020.
s/ Matthew Turner Matthew Turner, Jail Captain, Weld County Sheriff’s Office
3

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 65 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 24
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC THOMAS CARRANZA; JESUS MARTINEZ; RICHARD BARNUM; THOMAS LEWIS; MICHAEL WARD; COLBY PROPES; and CHAD HUNTER,
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, DEFENSES, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF [ECF 7]
Defendant Sheriff Steven Reams (“Sheriff”), by and through his counsel, Matthew J. Hegarty, Esq., Andrew D. Ringel, Esq., and John F. Peters, Esq., of Hall & Evans, L.L.C., respectfully submits his Answer, Defenses, and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief [ECF 7] (“Complaint”), and in support thereof admits, denies, and avers as follows:
INTRODUCTION Since the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Sheriff, the leadership team of the Weld County Sheriff’s Office (“WCSO”), and all of its deputies have worked hard to determine an appropriate response sufficiently advancing the various applicable interests

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 65 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 24
involved—the need to operate the Weld County Jail (“WCJ”); the need to protect the safety and health of inmates, detainees, and staff; and the need to protect the public of Weld County and the State of Colorado. As set forth in all of the different submissions to this Court by the Sheriff and his staff to date, and through the Sheriff’s testimony at the April 30, 2020, hearing before this Court, the Sheriff and his staff have engaged and continue to engage in ongoing efforts to meet all these goals. Plaintiffs’ Complaint and their entire argument and evidentiary presentation throughout this matter focused only on one of the applicable factors—the health of the Plaintiffs. Such a myopic focus is not and cannot be the only applicable consideration for the Sheriff, this Court, and the public.
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ INTRODUCTION 1. Paragraph 1 of the Complaint is a purely prefatory statement containing a wide variety of legal conclusions and self-serving statements from Plaintiffs, to which no response is required. To the extent any allegations in Paragraph 1 are deemed factual in nature, the Sheriff denies them. 2. Paragraph 2 of the Complaint is a purely prefatory statement containing a wide variety of legal conclusions and self-serving statements from Plaintiffs, to which no response is required.1 To the extent any allegations in Paragraph 2 are deemed factual
1 Plaintiffs’ Complaint contains 71 footnotes, the first appearing in Paragraph 2. The footnotes generally contain references purportedly supporting the general assertions in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. To the extent Plaintiffs intend to incorporate the actual footnoted material as allegations in the Complaint, the Sheriff objects to such incorporation. Moreover, it would be unduly burdensome for the Sheriff and his counsel, or indeed this Court, to review all of these sources to determine if they actually support the referenced allegations. The Sheriff states all such sources in their entirety speak for themselves. The Sheriff denies all allegations in all footnotes inconsistent with the entirety of the referenced materials. The Sheriff also denies any subjective and selective characterization of the
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 65 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 24
in nature, the Sheriff admits the entire world is in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Sheriff denies any remaining allegations deemed factual.
3. Paragraph 3 of the Complaint is a purely prefatory statement containing a wide variety of legal conclusions and self-serving statements from Plaintiffs, to which no response is required. Further, the statements in this paragraph require expert opinions and are not factual allegations capable of being admitted or denied. Published guidance and public statements from public health authorities in their entirety speak for themselves and do not require a response. To the extent any allegations in Paragraph 3 are deemed factual in nature, the Sheriff admits the entire world is in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Sheriff denies any remaining allegations deemed factual in Paragraph 3.
4. Paragraph 4 of the Complaint is a purely prefatory statement containing a wide variety of legal conclusions and self-serving statements from Plaintiffs, to which no response is required. Further, the statements in this paragraph require expert opinions and are not factual allegations capable of being admitted or denied. Published guidance and public statements from public health authorities in their entirety speak for themselves and do not require a response. To the extent any allegations in Paragraph 4 are deemed factual in nature, the Sheriff admits the entire world is in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Sheriff denies any remaining allegations deemed factual in Paragraph 4.
5. Paragraph 5 of the Complaint is a purely prefatory statement containing a wide variety of legal conclusions and self-serving statements from Plaintiffs, to which no
referenced materials by Plaintiffs. Finally, if any of the footnotes are deemed to include allegations, the Sheriff denies all such allegations in all such footnotes.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 65 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 24
response is required. Further, the statements in this paragraph require expert opinions and are not factual allegations capable of being admitted or denied. Published guidance and public statements from public health authorities in their entirety speak for themselves and do not require a response. Likewise, public health data in its entirety speaks for itself and requires no response. To the extent any allegations in Paragraph 5 are deemed factual in nature, the Sheriff denies them.
6. Paragraph 6 of the Complaint is a purely prefatory statement containing a wide variety of legal conclusions and self-serving statements from Plaintiffs, to which no response is required. Further, the statements in this paragraph require expert opinions and are not factual allegations capable of being admitted or denied. Published guidance and public statements from public health authorities in their entirety speak for themselves and do not require a response. To the extent any allegations in Paragraph 6 are deemed factual in nature, the Sheriff admits that, as a general matter and prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, inmates in jails are often within a few feet of another, and that some Colorado jails including the WCJ have decreased their jail population during the COVID19 pandemic. The Sheriff denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 6.
7. Paragraph 7 of the Complaint is a purely prefatory statement containing a wide variety of legal conclusions and self-serving statements from Plaintiffs, to which no response is required. To the extent any allegations in Paragraph 7 are deemed factual in nature, the Sheriff admits some inmates in the WCJ have been on 23-hour-per-day lockdowns during some specific periods of time. The Sheriff denies any remaining allegations deemed factual in Paragraph 7.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 65 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 24
8. Paragraph 8 of the Complaint is a purely prefatory statement containing a wide variety of legal conclusions and self-serving statements from Plaintiffs, to which no response is required. To the extent any allegations in Paragraph 8 are deemed factual in nature, the Sheriff denies them.
9. Paragraph 9 of the Complaint is a purely prefatory statement containing a wide variety of legal conclusions and self-serving statements from Plaintiffs, to which no response is required. To the extent any allegations in Paragraph 9 are deemed factual in nature, the Sheriff admits a small number of inmates and staff tested positive for COVID19, but denies any outbreak of, or quick spread of, COVID-19 actually occurred at the WCJ. The Sheriff denies any remaining allegations deemed factual in Paragraph 9.
10. Paragraph 10 of the Complaint is a purely prefatory statement containing a wide variety of legal conclusions and self-serving statements from Plaintiffs, to which no response is required. Public health data in its entirety speaks for itself and requires no response. To the extent any allegations in Paragraph 10 are deemed factual in nature, the Sheriff denies them.
11. Paragraph 11 of the Complaint is a purely prefatory statement containing a wide variety of legal conclusions and self-serving statements from Plaintiffs, to which no response is required. Further, the statements in this paragraph require expert opinions and are not factual allegations capable of being admitted or denied. Data regarding jail populations in its entirety speaks for itself and requires no response. To the extent any allegations in Paragraph 11 are deemed factual in nature, the Sheriff denies them.
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 65 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 24
12. Paragraph 12 of the Complaint is a purely prefatory statement containing a wide variety of legal conclusions and self-serving statements from Plaintiffs, to which no response is required. To the extent any allegations in Paragraph 12 are deemed factual in nature, the Sheriff denies them.
13. Paragraph 13 of the Complaint is a purely prefatory statement containing a wide variety of legal conclusions and self-serving statements from Plaintiffs, to which no response is required. To the extent any allegations in Paragraph 13 are deemed factual in nature, the Sheriff denies them and further denies that Plaintiffs “represent” a class.
RESPONSE TO “JURISDICTION AND VENUE” 14. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint, the Sheriff admits Plaintiffs contend their constitutional rights allegedly were violated, but states Plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and Plaintiffs are not entitled to any of the relief sought in the Complaint to the extent alleged in Paragraph 14. The Sheriff denies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides an independent basis for this Court’s jurisdiction, to the extent Plaintiff may assert such claims in proper fashion to the extent alleged in Paragraph 14. The Sheriff denies this action is a “class action” as no class has been certified. The Sheriff denies all other allegations in Paragraph 14 while noting that federal rules and statutes in their entirety speak for themselves, and specifically denies Plaintiffs are entitled to any declaratory relief, any injunctive relief, any class certification, or any other relief. 15. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, the Sheriff admits Plaintiffs contend their constitutional rights allegedly were violated, but states Plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and Plaintiffs are not entitled to any of the relief sought
6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 65 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 24
in the Complaint to the extent alleged in Paragraph 15. The Sheriff admits this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over matters involving federal questions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Sheriff denies all other allegations in Paragraph 15 while noting federal rules and statutes in their entirety speak for themselves. Further the Sheriff denies the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over any claims brought by Thomas Carranza, Thomas Lewis, Michael Ward, or Chad Hunter, as they are no longer housed in the WCJ and their claims are therefore moot. The Sheriff also denies the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over any class because no class certification is legally and factually appropriate and because the claims of the class representatives are moot.
16. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, the Sheriff does not contest the propriety of venue in this case to the extent asserted in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, but states Plaintiffs’ claims are without merit. The remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 16, if any, are denied.
RESPONSE TO “PARTIES” 17. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint, the Sheriff admits Thomas Carranza was 55 years old on the date the Complaint was filed. The Sheriff denies Mr. Carranza is housed in the WCJ and denies Mr. Carranza did not receive appropriate medical care while housed in the WCJ. The Sheriff states all of Mr. Carranza’s medical records in their entirety speak for themselves and denies all allegations in Paragraph 17 inconsistent therewith. The Sheriff states the WCJ only possesses limited medical records and medical information as to Mr. Carranza and all other inmates housed
7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 65 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 24
in the WCJ. The Sheriff lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 17, and hence denies them.
18. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint, the Sheriff admits Jesus Martinez is housed in the WCJ; admits Mr. Martinez has a bond of $10,000 and a parole hold; and admits Mr. Martinez was 33 years old on the date the Complaint was filed. The Sheriff states all of Mr. Martinez’s medical records in their entirety speak for themselves and denies all the allegations in Paragraph 18 inconsistent therewith. The Sheriff states the WCJ only possesses limited medical records and medical information as to Mr. Martinez and all other inmates housed in the WCJ. The Sheriff lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 18, and hence denies them.
19. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, the Sheriff admits Richard Barnum was 54 years old on the date the Complaint was filed. The Sheriff denies Mr. Barnum is housed in the WCJ. The Sheriff states all of Mr. Barnum’s medical records in their entirety speak for themselves and denies all the allegations in Paragraph 19 inconsistent therewith. The Sheriff states the WCJ only possesses limited medical records and medical information as to Mr. Barnum and all other inmates housed in the WCJ. The Sheriff lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 19, and hence denies them.
20. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint, the Sheriff admits Thomas Lewis was 60 years old on the date the Complaint was filed. The Sheriff denies Mr. Lewis is housed in the WCJ. The Sheriff states all of Mr. Lewis’ medical
8

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 65 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 24
records in their entirety speak for themselves and denies all the allegations in Paragraph 20 inconsistent therewith. The Sheriff states the WCJ only possesses limited medical records and medical information as to Mr. Lewis and all other inmates housed in the WCJ. The Sheriff lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 20, and hence denies them.
21. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint, the Sheriff admits Michael Ward was 31 years old on the date the Complaint was filed. The Sheriff denies Mr. Ward is housed in the WCJ. The Sheriff states all of Mr. Ward’s medical records in their entirety speak for themselves and denies all the allegations in Paragraph 21 inconsistent therewith. The Sheriff states the WCJ only possesses limited medical records and medical information as to Mr. Ward and all other inmates housed in the WCJ. The Sheriff lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 21, and hence denies them.
22. The allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint are conclusory and seek to state objectionable legal conclusions, and therefore no response is required. The Sheriff states the law enforcement and criminal court records for each of the Plaintiffs in their entireties speak for themselves and denies all allegations in Paragraph 22 inconsistent therewith. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 22 are deemed factual in nature, the Sheriff lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny them, and hence denies them.
23. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint, the Sheriff admits Colby Propes was 44 years old on the date the Complaint was filed. The Sheriff
9

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 65 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 24
admits Mr. Propes is now housed in the WCJ and has not yet been sentenced.2 The Sheriff states all of Mr. Propes’ medical records in their entirety speak for themselves and denies all allegations in Paragraph 23 inconsistent therewith. The Sheriff states the WCJ only possesses limited medical records and medical information as to Mr. Propes and all other inmates housed in the WCJ. The Sheriff lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 23, and hence denies them.
24. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint, the Sheriff admits Chad Hunter was 46 years old on the date the Complaint was filed. The Sheriff denies Mr. Hunter is housed in the WCJ and denies he was released on April 26, 2020.3 The Sheriff states all of Mr. Hunter’s medical records in their entirety speak for themselves and denies all the allegations in Paragraph 24 inconsistent therewith. The Sheriff states the WCJ only possesses limited medical records and medical information as to Mr. Hunter and all other inmates housed in the WCJ. The Sheriff lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 24, and hence denies them.
25. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint, the Sheriff admits he is a final policymaker for the WCJ on most issues related to the operations of the WCJ although the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County is the final
2 Mr. Propes was issued a court-ordered release from the WCJ on April 7, 2020, after entering a guilty plea but then failed to appear for a hearing and was subsequently arrested on June 5, 2020. At present. Mr. Propes is housed in the WCJ pending further state court judicial proceedings.
3 Mr. Hunter was released from the WCJ on April 15, 2020, to serve the remainder of his sentence on home detention pursuant to the order of a state court judicial officer.
10

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 65 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 24
policymaker for budgetary issues involving the WCSO. The Sheriff admits as Sheriff his actions taken in his official capacity are acts under the color of Colorado law. The Sheriff denies either he or his “agents” “have immediate custody over” the Plaintiffs; denies any class members are housed in the WCJ, as no class has been certified, and denies “all of [his] actions and inactions at issue herein occurred under color of state law.”
RESPONSE TO “FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS” RESPONSE TO “COVID-19 POSES A SIGNIFICANT RISK OF ILLNESS, INJURY,
OR DEATH” Statement from the Sheriff as to Heading I on Page 10 of the Complaint: The Sheriff does not agree with or adopt Heading I on Page 10 of the Complaint or any characterization therein made by Plaintiffs. To the extent Heading I on Page 10 of the Complaint is construed to be part of Plaintiffs’ claims, the Sheriff denies its allegations. 26. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint, the Sheriff admits the entire world is in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Beyond that, however, the Sheriff states the statements in this paragraph require expert opinions and are not factual allegations capable of being admitted or denied. Further, public health data in its entirety speaks for itself and does not require a response. The Sheriff denies any remaining allegations deemed factual in Paragraph 26. 27. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint, the Sheriff states this paragraph’s statements require expert opinions and are not factual allegations capable of being admitted or denied. Further, published guidance and public statements from public health authorities in their entirety speak for themselves and do not require a response. The Sheriff denies any remaining allegations deemed factual in Paragraph 27.
11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 65 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 24
28. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint, the Sheriff states the statements in this paragraph require expert opinions and are not factual allegations capable of being admitted or denied. The Sheriff denies any remaining allegations deemed factual in Paragraph 28.
29. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint, the Sheriff states the statements in this paragraph require expert opinions and are not factual allegations capable of being admitted or denied. The Sheriff denies any remaining allegations deemed factual in Paragraph 29.
30. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint, the Sheriff states the statements in this paragraph require expert opinions and are not factual allegations capable of being admitted or denied. Further public health data in its entirety speaks for itself and does not require a response. The Sheriff denies any remaining allegations deemed factual in Paragraph 30.
31. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint, the Sheriff states the statements in this paragraph require expert opinions and are not factual allegations capable of being admitted or denied. The Sheriff denies any remaining allegations deemed factual in Paragraph 31.
32. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint, the Sheriff states the statements in this paragraph require expert opinions and are not factual allegations capable of being admitted or denied. The Sheriff denies any remaining allegations deemed factual in Paragraph 32.
12

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 65 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 24
33. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint, the Sheriff states the statements in this paragraph require expert opinions and are not factual allegations capable of being admitted or denied. The Sheriff denies any remaining allegations deemed factual in Paragraph 33.
34. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint, the Sheriff states the statements in this paragraph require expert opinions and are not factual allegations capable of being admitted or denied. The Sheriff denies any remaining allegations deemed factual in Paragraph 34.
35. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint, the Sheriff states the statements in this paragraph require expert opinions and are not factual allegations capable of being admitted or denied. The Sheriff denies any remaining allegations deemed factual in Paragraph 35.
36. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint, the Sheriff states the statements in this paragraph require expert opinions and are not factual allegations capable of being admitted or denied. Further public health data in its entirety speaks for itself and does not require a response. The Sheriff denies any remaining allegations deemed factual in Paragraph 36.
37-A.4 Responsive to the allegations in the first Paragraph 37 of the Complaint, the Sheriff states the statements in this paragraph require expert opinions and are not factual allegations capable of being admitted or denied. The Sheriff denies any remaining allegations deemed factual in Paragraph 37-A.
4 Plaintiffs’ Complaint repeats paragraph numbers 37 and 38. 13

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 65 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 24
38-A. Responsive to the allegations in the first Paragraph 38 of the Complaint, the Sheriff states the statements in this paragraph require expert opinions and are not factual allegations capable of being admitted or denied. The Sheriff denies any remaining allegations deemed factual in Paragraph 38-A.
RESPONSE TO “PERSONS INCARCERATED IN JAILS FACE GRAVE AND IMMEDIATE DANGER DUE TO COVID-19”
Statement from the Sheriff as to Heading II on Page 15 of the Complaint: The Sheriff does not agree with or adopt Heading II on Page 15 of the Complaint or any characterization therein made by Plaintiffs. To the extent Heading II on Page 15 of the Complaint is construed to be part of Plaintiffs’ claims, the Sheriff denies its allegations.
37-B. Responsive to the allegations in the second Paragraph 37 of the Complaint, the Sheriff states the statements in this paragraph require expert opinions and are not factual allegations capable of being admitted or denied. This paragraph contains broad statements and not factual allegations specific to this case that can be admitted or denied. Further, public health data in its entirety speaks for itself and does not require a response. The Sheriff denies any remaining allegations deemed factual in Paragraph 37-B.
38-B. Responsive to the allegations in the second Paragraph 38 of the Complaint, the Sheriff states the statements in this paragraph require expert opinions and are not factual allegations capable of being admitted or denied. This paragraph contains broad statements and not factual allegations specific to this case that can be admitted or denied. The Sheriff denies any remaining allegations deemed factual in Paragraph 38-B.
39. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint, the Sheriff states the statements in this paragraph require expert opinions and are not factual
14

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 65 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 24
allegations capable of being admitted or denied. This paragraph contains broad statements and not factual allegations specific to this case that can be admitted or denied. The Sheriff denies any remaining allegations deemed factual in Paragraph 39.
40. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint, the Sheriff states the statements in this paragraph require expert opinions and are not factual allegations capable of being admitted or denied. This paragraph contains broad statements and not factual allegations specific to this case that can be admitted or denied. The Sheriff denies any remaining allegations deemed factual in Paragraph 40.
41. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint, the Sheriff states the statements in this paragraph require expert opinions and are not factual allegations capable of being admitted or denied. This paragraph contains broad statements and not factual allegations specific to this case that can be admitted or denied. The Sheriff denies any remaining allegations deemed factual in Paragraph 41.
RESPONSE TO “EXISTING PROCEDURES AND PROTOCOLS AT THE WELD COUNTY JAIL ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THE PLAINTIFFS, CLASS MEMBERS OR THE GENERAL PUBLIC” Statement from the Sheriff as to Heading III on Page 17 of the Complaint: The
Sheriff does not agree with or adopt Heading III on Page 17 of the Complaint or any characterization therein made by Plaintiffs. To the extent Heading III on Page 17 of the Complaint is construed to be part of Plaintiffs’ claims, the Sheriff denies its allegations.
42. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint, the Sheriff responds the statements in this paragraph require expert opinions and are not factual allegations capable of being admitted or denied. This paragraph contains broad
15

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 65 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 24
statements and not factual allegations specific to this case that can be admitted or denied. Published guidance and public statements from public health authorities in their entirety speak for themselves and do not require a response. Any Executive Order by Governor Jared Polis in its entirety speaks for itself and does not require a response. The Sheriff denies any remaining allegations deemed factual in Paragraph 42.
43. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint, the Sheriff admits the Weld County Sheriff’s Office received a letter from the ACLU dated March 26, 2020. The Sheriff responds to the remaining statements in this paragraph as follows: the statements are expert opinions and are not factual allegations capable of being admitted or denied. The Sheriff denies any remaining allegations deemed factual in Paragraph 43.
44. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint, the Sheriff admits a small number of inmates and staff tested positive for COVID-19. The Sheriff denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 44.
45. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint, the Sheriff lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny them, and hence denies them.
46. The Sheriff denies the allegations in Paragraph 46. 47. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint, the Sheriff admits he posted a “Get out of Jail Free Card” on Facebook and admits he did not release inmates from the WCJ except as ordered by Colorado state court judges as he is required to do under Colorado law. The Sheriff denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 47.
16

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 65 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 24
48. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 48 of the Complaint, the Sheriff states public health data in its entirety speaks for itself and does not require a response. The Sheriff denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 48.
49. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 49 of the Complaint, the Sheriff admits: many WCJ staff members work in Weld County; and some inmates are released from the WCJ daily. The Sheriff denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 49.
50. The Sheriff denies the allegations in Paragraph 50. 51. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 51 of the Complaint, the Sheriff admits the WCJ implemented a 23-hour per day lockdown for part of April 2020. The Sheriff denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 51. 52. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint, the Sheriff admits: some cells in the WCJ currently house more than one inmate; multiple inmates are allowed in common areas of the WCJ at some times and under specified conditions; and the conditions and restrictions on inmate congregation during COVID-19 have been strict and appropriate with public health guidelines based on the physical plant, number of inmates, classification needs, and other considerations of the WCJ. The Sheriff denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 52. 53. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 53 of the Complaint, the Sheriff admits some inmates in some housing units within the WCJ share bathroom facilities. The Sheriff denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 53. 54. The Sheriff denies the allegations in Paragraph 54. 55. The Sheriff denies the allegations in Paragraph 55.
17

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 65 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 24
56. The Sheriff denies the allegations in Paragraph 56. 57. The Sheriff denies the allegations in Paragraph 57. 58. The Sheriff denies the allegations in Paragraph 58. 59. The Sheriff denies the allegations in Paragraph 59. 60. The Sheriff denies the allegations in Paragraph 60. 61. The Sheriff denies the allegations in Paragraph 61. 62. The allegations in Paragraph 62 of the Complaint are conclusory and seek to state objectionable legal conclusions, and therefore no response is required. To the extent the allegations are deemed factual in nature, the Sheriff denies them and specifically denies Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief as may be sought in Paragraph 62. 63. The Sheriff denies the allegations in Paragraph 63.
RESPONSE TO “CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS”5 Statement from the Sheriff as to Heading IV on Page 24 of the Complaint: The Sheriff does not agree with or adopt Heading IV on Page 24 of the Complaint or any characterization therein made by Plaintiffs. To the extent Heading IV on Page 24 of the Complaint is construed to be part of Plaintiffs’ claims, the Sheriff denies its allegations. 64. The allegations in Paragraph 64 of the Complaint are conclusory and seek to state objectionable legal conclusions, and therefore no response is required. The Sheriff denies class certification is legally or factually appropriate. To the extent the allegations are deemed factual in nature, the Sheriff denies them.
5 Contemporaneously with the filing of this Answer, the Sheriff is filing the Defendant’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification [ECF 2]. The Sheriff incorporates herein all the arguments and authorities from the Response.
18

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 65 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 24
65. The allegations in Paragraph 65 of the Complaint are conclusory and seek to state objectionable legal conclusions, and therefore no response is required. The Sheriff denies that class certification is legally or factually appropriate. To the extent the allegations are deemed factual in nature, the Sheriff denies them.
66. The allegations in Paragraph 66 of the Complaint are conclusory and seek to state objectionable legal conclusions, and therefore no response is required. The Sheriff denies that class certification is legally or factually appropriate. To the extent the allegations are deemed factual in nature, the Sheriff denies them.
67. The allegations in Paragraph 67 of the Complaint are conclusory and seek to state objectionable legal conclusions, and therefore no response is required. The Sheriff denies that class certification is legally or factually appropriate. To the extent the allegations are deemed factual in nature, the Sheriff denies them.
RESPONSE TO “CLAIMS FOR RELIEF” Statement from the Sheriff as to Heading V on Page 25 of the Complaint: The Sheriff does not agree with or adopt Heading V on Page 25 of the Complaint or any characterization therein made by Plaintiffs. To the extent Heading V on Page 25 of the Complaint is construed to be part of Plaintiffs’ claims, the Sheriff denies its allegations.
RESPONSE TO “FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF” Statement from the Sheriff as to Statements between the “First Claim for Relief” heading and Paragraph 68: The Sheriff denies the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over any claim by Thomas Carranza, Thomas Lewis, or Michael Ward. The
19

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 65 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 24
Sheriff further denies any named Plaintiff represents a class. The Sheriff also denies class certification is legally or factually appropriate.
68. The allegations in Paragraph 68 of the Complaint are conclusory and seek to state objectionable legal conclusions, and therefore no response is required. To the extent the allegations are deemed factual in nature, the Sheriff denies them.
69. The allegations in Paragraph 68 of the Complaint are conclusory and seek to state objectionable legal conclusions, and therefore no response is required. The Sheriff denies that any class exists. To the extent the allegations are deemed factual in nature, the Sheriff denies them.
70. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 70 of the Complaint, the Sheriff denies the allegations in Paragraph 70 and denies any class exists.
71. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 71 of the Complaint, the Sheriff denies the allegations in Paragraph 71 and denies any class exists.
RESPONSE TO “SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF” Statement from the Sheriff as to Statements between the “Second Claim for Relief” heading and Paragraph 72: The Sheriff denies the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over any Eighth Amendment claim by Colby Propes or Chad Hunter. The Sheriff further denies that any named Plaintiff represents a class. The Sheriff also denies class certification is legally or factually appropriate. 72. The allegations in Paragraph 72 of the Complaint are conclusory and seek to state objectionable legal conclusions, and therefore no response is required. The
20

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 65 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 24
Sheriff denies that any class exists. To the extent the allegations are deemed factual in nature, the Sheriff denies them.
73. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 73 of the Complaint, the Sheriff denies the allegations in Paragraph 73 and denies any class exists.
74. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 74 of the Complaint, the Sheriff denies the allegations in Paragraph 74 and denies any class exists.
RESPONSE TO “CLAIMS FOR RELIEF” Statement from the Sheriff as to Heading VI on Page 27 of the Complaint: The Sheriff does not agree with or adopt Heading VI on Page 27 of the Complaint or any characterization therein made by Plaintiffs. To the extent Heading VI on Page 27 of the Complaint is construed to be part of Plaintiffs’ claims, the Sheriff denies its allegations. 75. Responsive to the allegations in Paragraph 75 of the Complaint, the Sheriff denies all allegations in Paragraph 75 and denies Plaintiffs are entitled to any of the relief listed as being sought in Paragraph 75 or as being sought in subparagraphs 1. through 6. or in subparagraphs 2a. through 2g. The Sheriff further denies any named Plaintiff represents a class and also denies class certification is legally or factually appropriate. STATEMENT OF DENIAL OF ALLEGATIONS NOT SPECIFICALLY ADMITTED The Sheriff expressly denies any and all allegations set forth in the Complaint but not specifically admitted in this Answer.
DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES PREFATORY STATEMENT: Counsel has not had an opportunity to participate in discovery or conduct a full investigation into this case’s facts. Thus, the defenses set forth
21

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 65 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 24
below are pled alternatively under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d). The Sheriff will withdraw or modify any defense or affirmative defense as may be required under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 if it is revealed after the discovery period concludes the Sheriff cannot prevail in such defense.
1. The Complaint may fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 2. Plaintiffs may not be entitled to any relief being sought or claimed in the Complaint under one or more of the legal theories asserted therein. 3. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over any claim by Thomas Carranza, Thomas Lewis, Michael Ward, or Chad Hunter, as they are no longer housed in the WCJ and their claims are therefore moot. 4. The named Plaintiffs cannot serve as class representatives because the named Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims. 5. The named Plaintiffs cannot serve as class representatives because the named Plaintiffs’ alleged claims are not typical of the putative class. 6. Certification of Plaintiffs’ putative class is legally and factually inappropriate. 7. The Court has already rejected Plaintiffs’ definition of the putative class, by adopting a narrower definition of “medically vulnerable” in its Order. [ECF 55]. 8. Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of proof to show class certification is appropriate under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. 9. All or part of Plaintiffs’ claims never achieved the level of any constitutional violation sufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 10. The harm Plaintiffs allege may have been caused by the acts or omissions of third parties over whom the Sheriff possessed no ability to control or right of control.
22

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 65 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 24
11. At all relevant times, the Sheriff acted in accordance with all common law, statutory, and constitutional obligations, and without any intent to cause Plaintiffs harm.
12. Plaintiffs’ claims, including alleged entitlement to attorney fees, may be barred or limited by the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.
13. The Sheriff acted reasonably under the circumstances and complied with applicable legal authority in all acts or omissions associated with Plaintiffs.
14. Plaintiffs cannot satisfy all or some of the prerequisites to a grant of equitable or injunctive relief in this matter and any request for injunctive relief is moot.
15. The Sheriff reserves his right to assert other or additional defenses and affirmative defenses as may become known in the course of these proceedings generally and specifically in response to any Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE, having answered all allegations of the Complaint which require a response, Defendant Sheriff Steven Reams moves the Court for an Order dismissing all elements of all claims against him in complete and total fashion, awarding him costs and attorney fees, and granting all other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated and respectfully submitted this 8th day of June, 2020. s/ Matthew J. Hegarty Matthew J. Hegarty, Esq. Andrew D. Ringel, Esq. John F. Peters, Esq. of HALL & EVANS, LLC 1001 17th Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 T: (303) 628-3300 hegartym@hallevans.com ringela@hallevans.com petersj@hallevans.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
23

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 65 Filed 06/08/20 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 24

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF)

I hereby certify that on this 8th day of June, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, DEFENSES, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF [ECF 7] was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court which will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses:

Darold W. Killmer David A. Lane Andrew Joseph McNulty Michael Paul Fairhurst KILLMER LANE & NEWMAN LLP dkillmer@kln-law.com dlane@kln-law.com amcnulty@kln-law.com mfairhurst@kln-law.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Thomas Carranza, Jesus Martinez, Michael Ward, Colby Propes, and Chad Hunter
Daniel David Williams Lauren Elizabeth Groth HUTCHINSON BLACK & COOK, LLC williams@hbcboulder.com groth@hbcboulder.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Richard Barnum and Thomas Lewis

David George Maxted MAXTED LAW LLC dave@maxtedlaw.com
Jamie Hughes Hubbard STIMSON STANCIL LABRANCHE HUBBARD LLC hubbard@sslhlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Thomas Carranza, Jesus Martinez, Michael Ward, Colby Propes, and Chad Hunter . Mark Silverstein Rebecca Teitelbaum Wallace Sara R. Neel AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNIONDENVER msilverstein@aclu-co.org rtwallace@aclu-co.org sneel@aclu-co.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs Richard Barnum and Thomas Lewis

s/ Marlene Wilson, Legal Assistant to Matthew J. Hegarty, Esq. Andrew D. Ringel, Esq. John F. Peters, Esq. of HALL & EVANS, LLC 1001 17th Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 T: (303) 628-3300 hegartym@hallevans.com ringela@hallevans.com petersj@hallevans.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

24

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 16
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC THOMAS CARRANZA; JESUS MARTINEZ; RICHARD BARNUM; THOMAS LEWIS; MICHAEL WARD; COLBY PROPES; and CHAD HUNTER,
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FORTHWITH HEARING [ECF 62]
Defendant Sheriff Steven Reams (“Sheriff”), by and through counsel, Matthew J. Hegarty, Esq., Andrew D. Ringel, Esq., and John F. Peters, Esq., of Hall & Evans, L.L.C., now submits his Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Forthwith Hearing [ECF 62], as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs’ Motion for Forthwith Hearing (“Motion”) begins with the factually unsupported speculation that Anthony Griego, formerly an inmate at the Weld County Jail (“WCJ”), died of COVID-19. In fact, no determination has yet been made about Mr. Griego’s cause of death by the Weld County Coroner or anyone else. Plaintiffs’ Motion then offers even more factually unsupported speculation the Sheriff and Weld County

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 16
Sheriff’s Office (“WCSO”) are engaging in willful noncompliance with this Court’s narrow Order Granting in Part and Otherwise Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF 55]. Tellingly, nowhere in the Motion (or in any filing by Plaintiffs to date) have Plaintiffs acknowledged this Court’s definition of “medically vulnerable” is much narrower than the one Plaintiffs proposed. In addition, neither at the hearing before this Court, nor in Plaintiffs’ Motion, nor at any other time during the course of this litigation have Plaintiffs offer any evidence whatsoever to contradict the Sheriff’s and the WCSO’s judgment concerning jail operations and consideration of all the different factors beyond only inmate health which this Court recognized the Sheriff and the WCSO must consider in making inmate housing assignments and otherwise implementing this Court’s Order. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs are incorrect, no forthwith hearing is required, the Sheriff is in full compliance with this Court’s Order, and Plaintiffs’ Motion must be denied.
II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 1. On May 11, 2020, the Court entered the narrow Order [ECF 55], requiring the Sheriff accomplish the following:
a. A certification to the Court of identification of a list of persons identified as “medically vulnerable” according to the Court’s narrow definition of that term, along with providing the list to the Court and Plaintiffs and explaining its compilation;
b. “A policy ensuring that, to the maximum extent possible considering the Jail’s physical layout, population level, and classification needs, medically vulnerable inmates are ‘socially distanced’ from other inmates housed in the Jail”;
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 16
c. “A procedure, as part of the intake of new inmates into the Jail, for medically vulnerable inmates to be single-celled or otherwise socially distanced, to the maximum extent possible considering the Jail’s physical layout and classification needs, while housed in the transition unit”;
d. “A policy of enhanced sanitation procedures in areas where medically vulnerable inmates are housed”;
e. “A plan to obtain a sufficient number or type of masks so that inmates do not need to wear them for more than their intended duration or so that inmates may be able to clean them”; and
f. “A policy providing for increased monitoring of medically vulnerable inmates for symptoms of COVID-19”. [ECF 55 at 38-39]. By its terms this Court’s Order expires August 9, 2020. [ECF 55 at 39]. 2. On May 18, 2020, the Sheriff submitted his Notice of Complete Compliance with this Court’s Order, setting forth (a) comprehensive explanations as to the endeavors of the Sheriff and the WCSO to analyze what the Court required from all applicable angles, (b) the responsive policies, procedures, and plans the Sheriff and WCSO developed, and (c) the increased financial and operational costs which the WCSO has incurred, is incurring, and will incur in connection with efforts to combat COVID-19 (and, by extension, in connection with compliance with ECF 55). [See ECF 60 to 60-14]. 3. The Motion expressly concedes the sufficiency of the Sheriff’s policies and procedures respecting (d) enhanced sanitation for medically vulnerable inmates and respecting (e) masks for inmates. [See ECF 62 at 2].
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 16
4. The Motion, by omission, also concedes the sufficiency of the Sheriff’s policies and procedures respecting (f) enhanced medical monitoring for medically vulnerable inmates for symptoms of COVID-19. [See generally ECF 62].
5. In contrast, the Motion claims (without attaching any evidentiary submission) the Sheriff’s substantial compliance efforts are deficient in connection with three and only three areas, namely (a) the procedures utilized to identify medically vulnerable inmates, (b) the policy for social distancing and housing of medically vulnerable inmates in general population units within the WCJ, and (c) the policy for social distancing and housing of medically vulnerable inmates in intake units within the WCJ. [See generally ECF 62].
6. Six days after the Motion was filed, Plaintiffs submitted a “Notice of Submission of Supplemental Support to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Forthwith Hearing” to which was attached the First Supplemental Declaration of Carlos Franco-Paredes, Plaintiffs’ expert witness, in purported support of entitlement to a forthwith hearing. [See ECF 63 and ECF 63-1].
7. The Sheriff provided a lengthy analysis and assessment as to the limits on his ability to provide social distancing in housing medically vulnerable inmates in both general population and intake, and how he and the WCSO arrived at the policies presented to this Court on these issues. [See ECF 60-8 ¶¶ 14-17 (general population), ¶¶ 18-21 (intake)].
8. Plaintiffs’ Motion presents no evidence from any jail or correctional expert to contradict or call into question the Sheriff’s and the WCSO’s perspective. [ECF 62].
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW Neither any Local Rule within this District, nor any Civil Practice Standard of this Court, nor any Tenth Circuit opinion, governs requests for a forthwith hearing. And given
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 16
the broad scope of the Sheriff’s compliance efforts as detailed in ECF 60 and its exhibits, the Sheriff disagrees the Motion properly invokes this Court’s inherent authority to effect compliance with its Order, whether generally speaking or specifically in the context of United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258 (1947) (plurality). United Mine Workers does not apply here because the primary concern of the Supreme Court of the United States there was confirming the District Court could enforce willful violations of its own orders via the criminal contempt power, the use of which isn’t warranted here. Thus, the Sheriff construes the Motion as seeking modification of this Court’s Order.1
Cases are scant as to the applicable standard when a party seeks to modify a preliminary injunction (in contrast to a temporary restraining order, permanent injunction, or consent decree), but they appear to indicate the party seeking modification bears the burden at a minimum to show existence of changed circumstances, although it is unclear whether this burden is sourced in Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), the Court’s inherent authority, or some other principle. E.g., Verlo v. Martinez, 820 F.3d 1113, 1126 n.4 (10th Cir. 2016); cf. David C. v. Leavitt, 242 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (10th Cir. 2001); Rossi Ventures, Inc. v. Pasquini, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168925, at *17-18 (D. Colo. Nov. 28, 2012).
IV. ARGUMENT For several reasons, Plaintiffs failed to carry their burden to show good cause for or changed circumstances requiring a hearing or any modification of this Court’s Order.
1 But cf. MSK Civ. Prac. Std. 7.3(f). In addition, the Court’s lack of reaction to Plaintiffs’ Motion from its filing through the date of the Sheriff’s Response indicates the Court does not concur with the notion that an expedited hearing is necessary or proper from the face of Plaintiffs’ filings. [Cf. ECF 23, ECF 27, ECF 33].
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 16
A. The Procedures Used to Identify Medically Vulnerable Inmates Are Compliant This Court’s Order requiring the Sheriff to identify a list of “medically vulnerable”
inmates per the Court’s narrow definition, along with providing the list to the Court and Plaintiffs and explaining its compilation, stated verbatim:
[O]n or before May 18, 2020, at 5:00 p.m., defendant shall certify to the Court that he has compiled a list of those persons (“medically vulnerable inmates”) currently held at the Weld County Jail who have one or more of the following conditions: are 65 years and older, have chronic lung disease or moderate to severe asthma, have serious heart conditions, are immunocompromised, have severe obesity, have diabetes, have chronic kidney disease and undergoing dialysis, or have liver disease. Defendant shall provide to the Court and plaintiffs a list of medically vulnerable inmates by inmate number, identifying for each what risk categories the inmate has and explaining what process he used to identify medically vulnerable inmates. [ECF 55 at 37-38]. As part of his Notice of Complete Compliance, the Sheriff disclosed to the Court the screening tool WCJ medical staff and augmented nursing staff used on May 13, 2020, to perform a facility-wide screening of inmates to ascertain whether they were “medically vulnerable” under this Court’s limited criteria. [See ECF 60-4; see also ECF 60-1 ¶¶ 1114]. This screening tool tracks this Court’s indicated risk category criteria for medically vulnerable inmates, using the criteria in the Order. [Compare ECF 55 at 37-38 with ECF 60-4]. What’s more, the roster by inmate number and risk category the Sheriff provided to this Court also tracks the Court’s criteria. [Compare ECF 55 at 37-38 with ECF 60-5]. And further, the Sheriff’s evidence indicated this tool would be in use with respect to new arrestees admitted to the intake units on a going-forward basis. [ECF 60-1 ¶ 12]. Despite the Sheriff carrying out this Court’s expectation thoroughly, Plaintiffs assert his efforts are lacking and fewer than all “medically vulnerable” inmates, as defined by the Court, are being identified. But Plaintiffs provided the Court no evidence this is occurring
6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 16
apart from speculation. Instead, it turns out rather than having a problem with the Sheriff’s compliance efforts, what Plaintiffs really take issue with is the scope of the Court’s Order narrowly defining “medically vulnerable.” It is notable Plaintiffs’ stated concern with the Sheriff’s screening tool [see ECF 62 at 8] appears to be the Sheriff did not ask about specific medical conditions, which Plaintiffs proposed yet this Court specifically rejected in narrowly defining “medically vulnerable.” [Compare ECF 1 at 26 (Plaintiffs’ proposed definition of “medically vulnerable,” including several specific medical conditions), with ECF 55 at 30 (this Court’s narrower definition of “medically vulnerable”)]. Plaintiffs had an opportunity to convince this Court a broader definition was appropriate, but the Court did not agree and adopted a narrower definition. Also, the context of the medical screening of all WCJ inmates clearly concerned medical vulnerability to COVID-19 and all inmates unquestionably would have known this reality. [See ECF 60-1 ¶ 18]. Plaintiffs haven’t presented the Court with any quantum of changed circumstances sufficing to show the Order should be modified as to identifying the “medically vulnerable” inmate population within the WCJ or that any hearing concerning this issue before this Court is necessary. B. The Policy Concerning Social Distancing and Housing of Medically Vulnerable
Inmates in General Population Units Within the WCJ Is Compliant This Court’s Order requiring the Sheriff to adopt a policy for social distancing and
housing medically vulnerable inmates in WCJ general population units stated verbatim: A policy ensuring that, to the maximum extent possible considering the Jail’s physical layout, population level, and classification needs, medically vulnerable inmates are “socially distanced” from other inmates housed in the Jail. If social distancing is effectively impossible for some or all of the medically vulnerable inmates in the Jail, such policy may be supplemented by housing medically vulnerable inmates together in one or more pods. [ECF 55 at 38].
7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 16
The Court’s Order also credited, positively, the practice of “cohorting” and the use of “family groupings or staggering release of individual cells”. [ECF 55 at 10-11, 24, 31 n.17].
With his Notice of Complete Compliance, the Sheriff provided a comprehensive plan to ensure social distancing of medically vulnerable inmates to the maximum extent possible in general population given all other factors the Court expressly authorized the Sheriff to consider. The Sheriff did not state, without more, it was effectively impossible to ensure social distancing of all medically vulnerable inmates (nor did the Sheriff cite inconvenience to WCSO staff), but listed many specific and concrete reasons why this policy offered the maximum social distancing feasible. [See ECF 60-8 at 4-9.] The Sheriff also gave information, which Plaintiffs haven’t challenged and so presumably won’t, as to the precautionary need to keep a number of housing units unencumbered for intake units for new arrestees and for isolation units. [See ECF 60-8 ¶ 16(j)]. Further, the Sheriff’s decision not to house medically vulnerable inmates in a unit consisting only of medically vulnerable inmates is supported by Carlos Franco-Paredes, who agrees this could be counterproductive. [ECF 63-1 at 3-4]. And as for the mere existence of unused cells in the WCJ, the Sheriff testified at the April 30, 2020, hearing as to common-sense reasons behind this, having nothing to do with deliberate indifference to those the Court considers medically vulnerable—but to account for the WCJ’s physical layout, the WCJ’s population level, and all of the WCJ’s various classification factors. [See ECF 60-8 ¶ 16(c).]
Once again, rather than having a problem with the Sheriff’s compliance efforts, what Plaintiffs really fault is the Court and the scope of its Order allowing the Sheriff to account for many other important factors affecting the WCJ’s physical layout, population
8

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 16
level, and its various classification needs, while still trying to prioritize social distancing of medically vulnerable inmates “to the maximum extent possible” in general population, i.e., given all other factors the Court believed important enough to permit in its Order. Notably, the Court declined to require in its Order any testing protocol. [See ECF 55 at 33]. Simply, Plaintiffs haven’t presented evidence of changed circumstances to show the Order should be modified as to efforts to socially distance “medically vulnerable” inmates in general population to the maximum extent possible considering the WCJ’s physical layout, population level, and classification needs or that any hearing on this issue is necessary. C. The Procedure Concerning Social Distancing and Housing of Medically
Vulnerable Inmates in Intake Units Within the WCJ Is Compliant This Court’s Order requiring the Sheriff to adopt a policy for social distancing and
housing of medically vulnerable inmates in intake units within the WCJ, stated verbatim: A procedure, as part of the intake of new inmates into the Jail, for medically vulnerable inmates to be single-celled or otherwise socially distanced, to the maximum extent possible considering the Jail’s physical layout and classification needs, while housed in the transition unit. [ECF 55 at 38]. With his Notice of Complete Compliance, the Sheriff provided a comprehensive
plan to ensure social distancing of medically vulnerable inmates to the maximum extent possible in intake/transition units, given the other factors the Court expressly authorized the Sheriff to consider. [ECF 60-8 at 10-11]. In particular, the procedure specifically prioritizes housing “medically vulnerable” inmates admitted to WCJ’s intake/transition units in a cell by themselves, alone, and away from other inmates, so Plaintiffs’ conclusory assertion the policy does not do so is incorrect. [ECF 60-8 ¶ 19]. The sole exception to this approach is only if it is “not possible” and only “due to the WCJ’s physical layout,
9

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 16
population level, and classification needs”—straight from this Court’s Order—and even then, no more than two “medically vulnerable” inmates can be in the same cell together in intake, which still helps ensure social distancing in the intake cells given what the Sheriff testified were the intake unit cell dimensions. [See ECF 60-8 ¶ 19]. And the need to set aside three housing units for intake units, to ensure enough general population housing for new arrestees who come out of intake units, is due to the flow rate of new inmates into the WCJ which the Sheriff cannot control. WCJ population growth since April 30, 2020, proves the Sheriff was right. [See Turner 4th Suppl. Decl., attached as Exh. I, ¶¶ 42-44].
As before, rather than take issue with the Sheriff’s compliance efforts, particularly on terms the Sheriff articulated in a framework expressly approved by this Court’s Order, Plaintiffs really take issue with the scope of the Court’s Order allowing the Sheriff to plan for many other important factors including the WCJ’s physical layout, population level, and its various classification needs, while still attempting to prioritize social distancing of medically vulnerable inmates “to the maximum extent possible” in intake units. The Court, however, believed these other factors important enough to make allowance for them in its Order and again declined to include in its Order any testing protocol. [See ECF 55 at 33-34]. Plaintiffs haven’t presented evidence of changed circumstances to show the Order should be modified as to efforts to socially distance “medically vulnerable” inmates in intake units to the maximum extent possible considering the WCJ’s physical layout, population level, and classification needs or that any hearing on this issue is necessary. D. Dr. Franco-Paredes’ First Supplemental Declaration Does Not Change Any of
the Above Conclusions, and the Sheriff, His Office, and the WCJ Have Gone Above and Beyond What Is Required of Them
10

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 16
No other putative factual support for the Motion was offered besides the FrancoParedes First Supplemental Declaration, ECF 63-1.2 In any event, the new Declaration is insufficient to prevail upon the Court to hold a forthwith hearing, for several reasons.
First, as previously indicated, given the Court pointedly declined to order any COVID-19 testing protocol as a component of its Order or what it required the Sheriff to do, all purported statements within ECF 63-1 concerning recommendations as to testing can be disregarded as being well outside the narrow scope of what the Court ordered.
Second, the Declaration is factually incorrect as to the status of Weld County within Colorado’s COVID-19 infection continuum, as it relies on outdated information concerning the rate of infection of all persons then residing within a given county such that Weld County no longer can be considered a hotspot.3
Third, Dr. Franco-Paredes disregards the CDC’s own protocol which allows for cohorting and imposes upon the Sheriff not only a standard well in excess of what the United States Constitution requires, but also in excess of what the CDC recommends.4
2 Further, the Court must disregard any argument or shift in strategy in Plaintiffs’ Reply to this Response presenting such factual information for the first time, unless the Court also permits the Sheriff a surreply. E.g., Menge v. AT&T, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20008, at *2 (D. Colo. Feb. 13, 2013) (Brimmer, C.J.) (“Granting leave to file a surreply is part of the ‘supervision of litigation’ and thus falls within the discretion of the district court. However, the Court’s discretion is limited insofar as it may not deny the nonmovant’s motion to file a surreply unless it disregards any new arguments in the moving party’s reply.”). In addition, allowing Plaintiffs to again metastasize their requested relief on Reply will represent yet another effort by Plaintiffs to “shift[] over the course of this case” the relief they seek, which is improper. [See ECF 55 at 30 n.16].
3 See, e.g., https://www.denverpost.com/2020/06/08/denver-coronavirus-deathsinfection-rates/ (last visited June 10, 2020).
4 The Sheriff continues to maintain CDC guidance is neither binding nor controlling in this case. [See ECF 26 at 27-28].
11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 16
Fourth, Dr. Franco-Paredes’ musings about screening tools to identify “medically vulnerable” inmates must be disregarded because they well exceed the narrow scope of what the Court ordered as to the Sheriff’s efforts to identify medically vulnerable inmates.
Fifth, with all respect to Dr. Franco-Paredes, he has no knowledge or experience relevant to operating a jail or other correctional facility as he admitted during the hearing on April 30, 2020, so his opinion about single-celling “medically vulnerable” inmates in intake with no exception must be tempered by other legitimate jail-management concerns, of which the Court expressly authorized consideration. Further, the WCSO already prioritizes single-celling “medically vulnerable” inmates in intake. Dr. Franco-Paredes’s opinion thus exceeds the narrow scope of what the Court ordered and fails to account for outside pressures on the Sheriff and the WCJ in terms of an increase in WCJ population which the Sheriff cannot control despite pleas to local law enforcement to limit arrests, along with the range of classification factors the Court ordered the Sheriff could consider but which apparently were lost on Dr. Franco-Paredes. Fundamentally, both Plaintiffs and Dr. Franco-Parades analyze this Court’s Order and the Sheriff’s compliance only through lenses of medicine and public health. The lens this Court’s Order actually used, though, was broader and included the Sheriff’s need to operate the WCJ and all considerations relevant to its operation. Plaintiffs never even attempted to offer anyone with any jail or correctional management experience to provide evidence to this Court contradicting the Sheriff’s well-informed and well-supported approach. The Sheriff’s jail management perspective presented in this case, including in his most recent Declaration establishing his compliance with this Court’s Order, remains entirely uncontested by Plaintiffs.
12

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 16
Sixth, and with due respect to Dr. Franco-Paredes, who has not run a jail, his recommendation to single-cell “medically vulnerable” inmates in general population and not allow double-celling, unless they were cleared through testing at least twice in a week, likewise well exceed this Court’s narrow Order and fail to account for outside pressures on the Sheriff and the WCJ, for the range of classification factors the Court ordered the Sheriff could consider which apparently were discounted or ignored by Dr. FrancoParedes. [See ECF 60-8 at 4-9; see also Exh. I ¶ 20].
In the interest of transparency, the Sheriff now informs the Court of the result of his Office’s efforts to exceed the scope of the Court’s Order. Although this Court’s Order required no testing protocol be adopted or any testing conducted, the WCSO believed it prudent to make as many efforts as possible to get as many COVID-19 testing kits as possible to deliver as rapid of results as possible. Such efforts included several contacts with TKHC, WCHD, CDOC, and CDPHE in April 2020 and May 2020 to attempt to obtain tests. However, the WCSO had to conserve testing supplies for inmates in intake, and for reasons beyond the WCSO’s control as to which the WCSO won’t speculate, rapid-result COVID-19 testing kits were not available to the WCSO until early June 2020. The WCJ finally obtained, in the first week of June 2020, a batch of testing kits in a number sufficient to test every inmate then housed in the WCJ. From June 3-4, 2020, the WCJ administered a COVID-19 test to 392 of 396 inmates then housed in WCJ general population housing units (four inmates willfully refused the test), with plans to wait to test the inmates then within intake/transition units until they had been in intake for the prescribed amount of time (on advice of WCHD). [See Exh. I ¶¶ 31-36].
13

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 16
Test results were returned on Monday, June 8, 2020, revealing: more than 94% of WCJ general population inmates tested negative for COVID-19, including Plaintiff Jesus Martinez (the only Plaintiff housed in the WCJ at testing time); both inmates already on COVID-19 isolation protocol tested positive, meaning they remained on medical isolation; 22 other current inmates tested positive, all of whom were male; four of these inmates were part of the “medically vulnerable” inmate population; these inmates were spread out amongst almost all general population housing units, which essentially maintained their “family unit” status since early April 2020 with its associated limit on inmate movement; these inmates were spread out amongst all classification levels in the WCJ; and all 23 “other inmates” who tested positive were asymptomatic. [See Exh. I ¶ 37].
On learning this, the WCSO swiftly took several precautions that day: re-instituting total lockdown for the WCJ pending results of another testing round, as the total lockdown in place the entire month of April 2020 was slightly lifted; removing positive inmates from general population and placing them in medical isolation units, per previously identified protocols [see ECF 26-1, ECF 60-8]; quarantining all housing units from which positive inmates were taken, per previously identified protocols [see ECF 26-1, ECF 60-8]; began developing plans for more WCJ food services staff to assume duties relating to food service, and for female inmates and deputies to assume laundry duties; and calendaring June 22, 2020, as the next date to test every single inmate in WCJ general population given both the renewed lockdown and the quarantine protocol for all units which had inmates test positive. [See Exh. I ¶ 38]. However, for several good reasons, the WCSO cannot test all WCJ inmates daily and is constantly reacting. [See id. ¶¶ 39-41].
14

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 16
Finally, the WCJ has implemented a number of additional measures since May 11,
2020, which likewise well exceed the scope of the Court’s Order. [See generally Exh. I].
V. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Plaintiffs are trying to move the goalposts on the Sheriff and the
WCSO, whose efforts at compliance cannot be described as anything less than robust, and the Court should not countenance Plaintiffs’ attempt.5 Thus, for all these reasons
along with the Notice of Complete Compliance with this Court’s Preliminary Injunction and
its attachments [ECF 60], Defendant Sheriff Steven Reams requests this Court enter an
Order: denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Forthwith Hearing; concluding the Sheriff along with
the WCSO and WCJ complied completely with the terms of this Court’s Order dated May
11, 2020, and entering all other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.
Dated and respectfully submitted this 11th day of June, 2020.
s/ Matthew J. Hegarty Matthew J. Hegarty, Esq. Andrew D. Ringel, Esq. John F. Peters, Esq. of HALL & EVANS, L.L.C. 1001 17th Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 T: (303) 628-3300 F: (303) 628-3368 hegartym@hallevans.com ringela@hallevans.com petersj@hallevans.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
5 The Sheriff chose not to appeal because he and his staff have complied with this Court’s May 11, 2020, Order, but the Sheriff nevertheless reserves the right to appeal any modification of it or any order concluding the Sheriff has not complied. E.g., Wilson v. Williams, ___ F.3d ___, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 18087 (6th Cir. June 9, 2020) (concluding district court abused its discretion in entering preliminary injunction in COVID-19 case).
15

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 16

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF)

I hereby certify that on this 11th day of June, 2020, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FORTHWITH HEARING [ECF 62] was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court which will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses:

Darold W. Killmer David A. Lane Andrew Joseph McNulty Michael Paul Fairhurst KILLMER LANE & NEWMAN LLP dkillmer@kln-law.com dlane@kln-law.com amcnulty@kln-law.com mfairhurst@kln-law.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Thomas
Carranza, Jesus Martinez, Michael
Ward, Colby Propes, and Chad Hunter

David George Maxted MAXTED LAW LLC dave@maxtedlaw.com
Jamie Hughes Hubbard STIMSON STANCIL LABRANCHE HUBBARD LLC hubbard@sslhlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Thomas Carranza, Jesus Martinez, Michael Ward, Colby Propes, and Chad Hunter

Daniel David Williams Lauren Elizabeth Groth HUTCHINSON BLACK & COOK, LLC williams@hbcboulder.com groth@hbcboulder.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Richard
Barnum and Thomas Lewis

Mark Silverstein Rebecca Teitelbaum Wallace Sara R. Neel AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNIONDENVER msilverstein@aclu-co.org rtwallace@aclu-co.org sneel@aclu-co.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs Richard
Barnum and Thomas Lewis

s/ Marlene Wilson, Legal Assistant to Matthew J. Hegarty, Esq. Andrew D. Ringel, Esq. John F. Peters, Esq. of HALL & EVANS, L.L.C. 1001 17th Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 T: (303) 628-3300 F: (303) 628-3368 hegartym@hallevans.com ringela@hallevans.com petersj@hallevans.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

16

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66-1 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

EXHIBIT I

Civil Action No. 20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC

THOMAS CARRANZA; JESUS MARTINEZ; RICHARD BARNUM; THOMAS LEWIS; MICHAEL WARD; COLBY PROPES; and CHAD HUNTER,

Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons,

v.

STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,

Defendant.

FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF CAPTAIN MATTHEW TURNER

I, Captain Matthew Turner, being of lawful age and duly sworn under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, and for my Fourth Supplemental Declaration in the above-captioned case (“Declaration”), hereby declare as follows:
1. I have personal knowledge of the matters in this Declaration. 2. I currently serve as the Jail Captain for the Weld County Jail (“WCJ”) in the County of Weld, State of Colorado. I have served in this position for six months. 3. Before beginning my tenure as the WCSO Jail Captain on January 1, 2020, I was employed with the Weld County Sheriff’s Office (“WCSO”) for eight (8) prior years and served in many positions: Corrections Officer (what is now called Detentions Deputy) and separately earned my Peace Officer Standards Training (“POST”) certification; Public

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66-1 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 16
Information Officer Corporal; Detentions Division Shift Sergeant; Civil Unit Sergeant in charge of civil service processors, animal control, and victim advocates; and Detentions Division Lieutenant. Of my eight years working for the WCSO, I have spent a total of 5.5 years working in the WCJ.
4. I also earned an Associate of Arts degree in education from Front Range Community College in 2011 with a future goal to attain a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice from the University of Northern Colorado.
5. I am individually familiar with the protocols and processes the WCSO as a whole generated, implemented, and refined in response to the global, national, and local public health threat posed by the novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”) from February 27, 2020, through today, because I was personally involved in generating, implementing, refining, and approving all protocols and processes in consultation with a team of WCSO staff, local public health officials, and other relevant persons and entities.
6. All protocols and processes outlined in Sheriff Steven Reams’ Declaration dated April 13, 2020, remain in effect today. All protocols and processes outlined in my Supplemental Declaration dated April 24, 2020, also remain in effect today. All protocols and processes outlined in my Second Supplemental Declaration dated May 18, 2020, also remain in effect today. All protocols and processes outlined in the Declaration of Undersheriff Donnie Patch dated May 18, 2020, also remain in effect today. All protocols and processes outlined in Sheriff Steven Reams’ Supplemental Declaration dated May 18, 2020, also remain in effect today, specifically including but not limited to the enhanced measures relating to inmates identified as “medically vulnerable” as defined by the Court.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66-1 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 16
Throughout this Declaration, the term “medically vulnerable” refers only to the Court’s narrower definition. Based on the continuance of prior measures previously articulated to this Court, the information contained in this Fourth Supplemental Declaration must be understood and reviewed in the context of these other measures previously described and set forth in detail in the prior Declarations submitted to this Court.
7. I am further individually familiar with further protocols and processes the WCSO as a whole generated, implemented, and refined from March 1, 2020, to date—in continued consultation with WCJ’s medical services vendor Turn Key Health Clinics (“TKHC”), with WCJ’s food services vendor Aramark, and with various Weld County departments such as the Weld County Health Department (“WCHD”), all of which the WCSO has consulted extensively—but about which the Court has not yet been informed. These further protocols and processes, set forth in more detail below, were implemented with the express intent of the WCJ to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the health and safety of each inmate and detainee (collectively “inmates”) housed in the WCJ.
ADDITIONAL STEPS WCSO TOOK TO COMBAT COVID-19 WITH RESPECT TO MEDICAL CARE AND MEDICAL MONITORING MEASURES WITHIN THE WCJ, IN
CONSULTATION WITH TKHC, FROM MARCH 24, 2020, TO PRESENT 8. On March 24, 2020, more than a week before the WCJ went on lockdown, WCJ medical staff, with the support and consultation of WCSO, began a Vitamin D supplement regimen for all inmates identified as “Chronic Care” per TKHC guidelines which indicated a potential causal protective role for Vitamin D in decreasing respiratory disease risk. 9. This Vitamin D supplement regimen for “Chronic Care” inmates remains in place today.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66-1 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 16
10. Almost all of the inmates which TKHC previously identified as “Chronic Care” (except, e.g., pregnant inmates) also ended up being identified as medically vulnerable.
11. Also, the further screening tools developed to identify inmates as medically vulnerable (both in intake housing and in general population housing), as detailed in my May 18, 2020, Second Supplemental Declaration, are still in use today and will be used for the rest of the pandemic. [See ECF 60-1 at 2-3 ¶ 6, 4 ¶¶ 11-12].
12. In addition, on May 14, 2020, after meeting with WCSO staff to flesh out the contours of our compliance efforts in connection with the Court’s May 11, 2020 Order, I began working with WCJ medical staff to ensure they checked medically vulnerable inmates four (4) times daily. [See Exh. I-1]. The medical monitoring protocol I understand to be set forth in the Sheriff’s Supplemental Declaration dated May 18, 2020, has been in place on or before 5:00 PM May 21, 2020, remains in use today, and will be used for the rest of the pandemic. [See ECF 60-8 at 17-20 ¶¶ 30-31].
13. Further, Dustin Owens, WCJ’s Health Services Administrator, implemented several measures on May 19-20, 2020, related to medical monitoring including: an audit of all WCJ inmates identified as medically vulnerable per the above-referenced screening tools to confirm the claimed condition matched CDC guidelines and added them to the medically vulnerable list to be checked four times daily; and an update to WCJ’s COVID19 screening tool implemented as part of the booking process, including all CDC criteria, and if a patient (inmate) met the criteria, it was noted on the form and four-times-daily checks scheduled, and if such patient subsequently went on quarantine or medical isolation, related tasks could be scheduled. [See Exh. I-2].
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66-1 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 16
14. Also, since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, all TKHC personnel who work at WCJ have been required to wear masks and submit to temperature screenings to the same extent as Detentions Division personnel.
ADDITIONAL STEPS WCSO TOOK TO COMBAT COVID-19 WITH RESPECT TO SOCIAL DISTANCING MEASURES WITHIN THE WCJ, IN CONSULTATION WITH
VARIOUS PUBLIC AGENCIES, FROM MAY 11, 2020, TO PRESENT 15. On May 18, 2020, upon prior request of the WCSO, staff of the Weld County Department of Buildings & Grounds (“B+G”) came to the WCJ to assist with taping off spots in each housing unit to help inmates housed in the WCJ ascertain the appropriate social distance of six feet and make the best choices possible in maintaining the proper social distance when out of their cells, with enhanced consideration for inmates identified as medically vulnerable as defined by the Court. [See Exh. I-3]. 16. That day, using a significant supply of thick black gaffers tape, B+G staff placed “X” marks in the WCJ as follows: on the floor, every six feet where inmates would need to stand for meals, medications, and other similar purposes; on phones which were six feet from other phones (thus indicating phones which were not marked should not be used); and on seats which were six feet from other seats in each day area (thus indicating seats which were not marked should not be used). B+G accomplished this task in as many housing units for which they brought tape, but exhausted their supply of tape and were unable to accomplish this task in every single housing unit that day, although the task was ultimately completed as stated in Paragraph 18 below. 17. Also on May 18, 2020, Detentions Division personnel were instructed that, to the extent any of them were working in a housing unit lacking tape markings, they should
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66-1 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 16
assist inmates with the social distancing determination by approximating six-foot gaps between inmates using best judgment, directing inmates to social distance using these gaps, and strongly encouraging inmates to abide by such directives. [Exh. I-3].
18. On May 29, 2020, having obtained a new supply of the thick black gaffers tape just the previous day, B+G staff returned to the WCJ to complete the taping task, and within a few hours completed their taping task. [See Exh. I-4].
19. It is important to note that under normal circumstances, this measure of tape placement would not be used due to safety and security concerns with inmates removing the tape and using it for a variety of unauthorized purposes. [See Exh. I-3]. Despite this understandable limitation on using tape, the WCSO decided tape was the only available option to supplement the existing social distancing directives being given on a regular basis to all inmates housed within the WCJ. [E.g., ECF 41-1 at 3 ¶ 10, 7-8 ¶ 29.]
20. Also, the protocols implemented to ensure maximum social distancing for medically vulnerable inmates, which I understand are stated in the Sheriff’s Supplemental Declaration dated May 18, 2020, have been in place on or before 5:00 PM May 21, 2020, continue to be used today, and will be used for the rest of the pandemic. [See ECF 60-8 at 4-11 ¶¶ 15-17, 19-21]. To clarify, to the maximum extent possible given the physical limitations of the WCJ and its physical layout, population level, and factors such as inmate gender and age, classification needs, and other classification-type special circumstances, Detentions Division deputies endeavor to house no more than two medically vulnerable inmates in a cell together unless no other alternative is available to them.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66-1 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 16
ADDITIONAL STEPS WCSO TOOK TO COMBAT COVID-19 WITH RESPECT TO PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT MEASURES WITHIN
THE WCJ FROM MAY 11, 2020, TO PRESENT 21. On May 19, 2020, after WCSO staff meetings the prior week to flesh out the contours of our compliance efforts in connection with the Court’s May 11, 2020 Order, all “medically vulnerable” inmates were given two new N95 masks (per the WCJ’s standing order), all other inmates were given two cloth masks (as received from one of the two private vendors with which WCSO placed orders for them), and all other masks then in use by inmates were confiscated for safety and security reasons. [See Exh. I-5]. 22. The cloth masks are intended to be washed regularly, and the N95 masks are intended to be changed out every 72 hours. [See Exh. I-5]. 23. All Detentions Division personnel were instructed to reiterate to all inmates that they all must wear their masks at all times when out of their cells. [See Exh. I-5]. 24. In addition, the protocols which the WCJ implemented to ensure a steady supply of personal protective equipment for all inmates housed in the WCJ, which I understand to be set forth in the Sheriff’s Supplemental Declaration dated May 18, 2020, have been in place on or before 5:00 PM May 21, 2020, continue to be utilized today, and will be utilized for the rest of the pandemic. [See ECF 60-8 at 15-17 ¶¶ 27-28].
ADDITIONAL STEPS WCSO TOOK TO COMBAT COVID-19 WITH RESPECT TO INMATE SANITATION MEASURES WITHIN THE WCJ
FROM MAY 11, 2020, TO PRESENT 25. On May 15, 2020, after WCSO staff meetings earlier in the week to flesh out the contours of our compliance efforts in connection with the Court’s May 11, 2020 Order, B&G delivered fifty (50) additional spray bottles filled with HALT to the WCJ to supplement
7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66-1 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 16
the HALT spray bottles already present in the housing units, with the intent to ensure four (4) bottles in each unit to increase inmates’ ability to clean common areas, toilets, sinks, door handles, and other commonly used areas in the WCJ. [See Exh. I-6].
26. On May 18, 2020, Detentions Division personnel were notified that enhanced cleaning was synonymous with the B&G taping project identified above, given parameters for physical locations of medically vulnerable inmates when out of their cells are clearly marked and the areas to sanitize consequently being better ascertained. [See Exh. I-3].
27. The inmates who “are unable to” sanitize “as a result of a medical or mental health condition” include inmates identified as medically vulnerable. If the inmates who are out refuse to sanitize as directed to by the Detentions Divisions deputy or are unable to do so as a result of a medical or mental health condition, the Detentions Divisions deputy assumes this duty once the inmates are locked down to ensure sanitization occurs, by prior to “medically vulnerable” inmates entering any common area, spraying HALT disinfectant spray on all surfaces in the common area open for use by “medically vulnerable” inmates allowing 10 minutes of contact time for disinfection to occur before “medically vulnerable” inmates enter, and the deputy must pay special attention to areas to be used by medically vulnerable inmates. [See ECF 60-8 at 11-12 ¶ 23].
28. In addition, the other protocols which the WCJ implemented in connection with enhanced sanitation for medically vulnerable inmates, which I understand to be set forth in the Sheriff’s Supplemental Declaration dated May 18, 2020, have been in place on or before 5:00 PM May 21, 2020, continue to be utilized today, and will be utilized for the rest of the pandemic. [See ECF 60-8 at 11-15 ¶¶ 23-25].
8

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66-1 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 16
ADDITIONAL STEPS WCSO TOOK TO COMBAT COVID-19 WITH RESPECT TO FOOD SERVICE MEASURES WITHIN THE WCJ FROM MAY 11, 2020, TO PRESENT
29. On May 11, 2020, B&G increased the WCJ garbage schedule to twice weekly, due to continued use of Styrofoam trays and not plastic trays. The disposal needs of the WCJ have increased 200% due to Aramark’s COVID-19 response.
30. Also, since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Aramark personnel who work at WCJ have been required to wear masks and submit to temperature screenings to the same extent as Detentions Division personnel. RECENT TESTING DATA AS TO COVID-19-RELATED STATUS OF WCJ INMATES
31. Further, it is important to provide the Court with additional context to show the efficacy of the WCSO’s extensive and comprehensive measures at the WCJ to slow, stop, combat, and further guard against any additional spread of COVID-19 in the WCJ.
32. On May 28, 2020, only four inmates were on COVID-19 medical isolation (two confirmed positive and two suspected positive), and no housing units were on quarantine.
33. Even so, the WCSO, apart from this lawsuit, believed it prudent to make as many efforts as possible to get as many COVID-19 testing kits as possible which delivered as rapid of results as possible. Such efforts included several contacts with TKHC, WCHD, CDOC, and CDPHE in April 2020 and May 2020 to attempt to obtain tests.
34. However, for reasons beyond the WCSO’s control as to which the WCSO declines to speculate, rapid-result COVID-19 testing kits were not available to the WCSO until the start of June 2020. Up until the start of June 2020, the WCSO was only able to obtain 130 COVID-19 testing kits which took several days to return results, so the WCSO could not obtain the number of any type of test kit needed to test all inmates yet ensure
9

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66-1 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 16
ongoing testing for new intakes. After analyzing the issue from all applicable angles, the WCSO determined, in consultation with appropriate medical and public health experts, that prudence dictated the use of the testing kits which it was able to obtain only on inmates who were suspected positive for COVID-19 or confirmed positive for COVID-19 to conserve supplies, until rapid testing was more widely available. It was not until WCSO command staff learned testing of asymptomatic people in the community would occur that the WCSO was able to request test kits directly from the state of Colorado.
35. After more than two months of attempting to obtain a sufficient supply of testing kits for COVID-19, the WCJ finally obtained, during the first week of June 2020, a batch of testing kits in a number sufficient to test every inmate then housed within the WCJ and ensure continued testing of new after more than fourteen consecutive days in intake.
36. From June 3-4, 2020, the WCJ administered a COVID-19 testing kit to 392 of 396 inmates then housed in WCJ general population housing units (four inmates willfully refused the test due to what are believed to be mental health issues on the part of all four), with plans to wait to test the inmates then within intake/transition units until they had been in intake for the prescribed amount of time (on advice of WCHD).
37. The test results were returned to the WCJ on Monday, June 8, 2020. Those results revealed: more than 94% of the inmates then housed in general population units within the WCJ tested negative for COVID-19, including Plaintiff Jesus Martinez (the only named Plaintiff housed in the WCJ at the time of the tests); both of the inmates already on COVID-19 isolation protocol continued to test positive for COVID-19, meaning they had to remain on medical isolation; 23 other inmates tested positive for COVID-19; these
10

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66-1 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 16
inmates were all male (technically, one was female, but she was released from custody before results came in); four of these inmates were part of the inmate population identified as “medically vulnerable”; these inmates were spread out amongst almost all general population housing units in the WCJ, which have essentially maintained their “family unit” status since early April 2020 with its accompanying limitation on inmate movement; these inmates were spread out amongst all classification levels in the WCJ; and all 23 “other inmates” who tested positive were asymptomatic.
38. On learning this information the WCSO swiftly took the following precautions, also on Monday June 8, 2020: re-instituted total lockdown for the entire WCJ indefinitely, pending another round of testing on June 22, as the total lockdown which was in place the entire month of April 2020 had been slightly lifted; removed the inmates who tested positive from their general population units and placed them into medical isolation units, pursuant to the existing protocols which have been identified for the Court previously [see ECF 26-1, ECF 60-8]; placed on quarantine all housing units from which inmates who tested positive were taken, pursuant to the existing protocols which have been identified for the Court previously [see ECF 26-1, ECF 60-8]; began developing plans to have additional staff of the WCJ’s food services vendor assume more duties relating to food service, and to have female inmates and deputies assume duties relating to laundry; and calendared June 22, 2020, as the next date to test every single inmate in WCJ general population given both the existence of the renewed lockdown and the quarantine protocol for all units which had inmates test positive.
11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66-1 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 16
39. On advice from WCHD, the WCSO has developed the following plan to test inmates in the intake/transition units for COVID-19: (a) arrestees will be put into an intake unit when booked in as inmates; (b) when another empty unit is available after undergoing sanitization, such inmates will be moved from intake to a transition unit where they will be observed for symptoms for fourteen days; (c) on the 12th day of observation, the inmates in the transition unit will be administered a COVID-19 test; (d) when the test comes back on the 14th or 15th day, inmates who test negative will be housed in a general population unit, and inmates who test positive will be housed in a medical isolation unit.
40. It is also important to note the following with respect to testing: (a) due to the inevitable time delay between administering the test and obtaining results, testing only gives the WCSO a snapshot in time of the WCJ, and because of this delay the WCSO cannot use it to manage WCJ population in real time but is constantly reacting; (b) there is no known way to identify asymptomatic individuals, and as such there was no feasible way the WCSO could have known these 23 inmates had COVID-19; and (c) because of sporadic presentation of positive test results throughout the WCJ, there is no way to track who may have had contact with positive cases, necessitating the lockdown.
41. Finally, it is very important to note the many specific and concrete reasons why testing every single inmate every single day cannot be accomplished and why the WCSO is doing its best: (a) testing the WCJ daily would require approximately 500 tests each day, or 15,000 tests for the month of June alone, and the WCSO is unable to acquire this extreme volume of tests; (b) since test results are not instant and take two days or more to yield results, we would still be reacting and there is no way to manage COVID-
12

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66-1 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 16
19 in real time with any type of test; (c) on average, the WCJ experiences an estimated 15-30 releases per day and an estimated 15-30 new bookings per day, yet in order for an inmate to be considered to have acquired COVID-19 at the WCJ, they must be physically present within the WCJ for more than fourteen days, so the WCSO cannot obtain an accurate picture of the outbreak as it pertains to the WCJ; (d) some inmates reoffend and are re-booked in the WCJ multiple times in a short timeframe, and the WCSO could thus be expending multiple tests on one person who is completely asymptomatic; (e) WCSO personnel are trying to run a jail as safely and effectively as possible, they are not epidemiologists (and for that matter neither is Plaintiffs’ expert witness); (f) WCHD only counseled WCSO to perform initial source testing and monitor for symptoms and to have a plan to test new intakes, and daily or even weekly tests were not advised to occur by WCHD; (g) given it took two days to test the entirety of WCJ’s general population, WCSO simply does not have the personnel to perform daily tests given its current staffing matrix; and (h) most importantly, to the knowledge of the Sheriff and all WCSO personnel, no correctional facility in Colorado is testing its whole population for COVID-19 daily, yet the WCJ is the only jail in Colorado in the knowledge of the Sheriff and the WCSO to test all of its general population inmates at one time during one continuous testing administration.
ADDITIONAL CHALLENGES WCSO FACES IN CONNECTION WITH COMBATING COVID-19 WITH RESPECT TO INMATE POPULATION INCREASES OUTSIDE WCSO CONTROL WITHIN THE WCJ FROM MAY 18, 2020, TO PRESENT 42. From May 18, 2020, to June 9, 2020, an average of 24 new arrestees were
booked into the WCJ daily without a correspondingly equal decrease in the number of inmates which were subject to release.
13

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66-1 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 16
43. On June 11, 2020, the WCJ reached a total of 507 inmates, 51 of which were being held for CDOC.
44. As of June 11, 2020, all WCJ housing units are inmate-occupied, yet even though WCJ inmate numbers are lower than at the start of the pandemic, the WCSO has many more personnel working daily to staff units than the start of the pandemic.
45. I understand the Court already is aware of the Sheriff’s Declaration submitted on April 13, 2020, in this case, which detailed for the Court the limits on the physical plant of the WCJ given the statutory and state court judicial requirements under which the Sheriff and his command staff and deputies labor to do their best to keep inmates safe.
46. I also understand the Court is aware of the Sheriff’s Declaration concerning the fact the Sheriff does not possess any legal authority to modify or revoke these pretrial detainees’ bonds which are set by the state court judge presiding over their individual cases, and the fact the Sheriff possesses no legal authority to permit any of these inmates to serve their pretrial period at home or any other detention facility other than the WCJ as any such decision would have to be made by the state court judge.
47. Despite these limitations which are a necessary consequence of Colorado’s state court judicial system and criminal justice statutory regime, the WCJ has continued to work to attempt to single-cell inmates who are medically vulnerable as defined by the Court (as well as other inmates if possible), wherever and whenever possible while still maintaining best practices for anti-transmission of communicable disease and addressing all of the custody issues, classification issues, and other specific issues which must be taken into consideration in any housing placement of all inmates in the WCJ.
14

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66-1 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 16
48. The situation as it existed on April 24, 2020, as detailed in my Supplemental Declaration, is particularly relevant in light of the average housing unit space as detailed above, which even given the passage of almost seven more weeks still is not enough to maintain six feet of distance between all inmates at all times within the WCJ.
49. As of June 11, 2020, the WCJ houses 507 inmates. As previously articulated, the Sheriff lacks the legal authority to release any of the inmates currently detained.
50. In addition, pursuant to state statute, the Sheriff must house certain classes of inmates who are arrested for certain offenses, resulting in the Sheriff having essentially no control over population increases in the WCJ and making it effectively impossible to single-cell most, if not all, of the inmates who are medically vulnerable as defined by the Court (whether in the intake housing units or in general population) given all of the factors for which the Sheriff must account and the Court allowed an accounting.
51. The WCSO and the WCJ have done and continue to do what we are able to do to address all issues related to COVID-19 including inmate separation within the confines of the physical plant of the WCJ and the number of inmates at the WCJ. The WCSO and the WCJ continue to work on these issues every day seeking guidance from all available sources and continuing to refine all applicable policies and protocols based on any new guidance disseminated from any of the many sources relied upon. Every day during this pandemic, I have worked extremely hard to ensure to the best of my ability all inmates at the WCJ, all staff who work there, and all individuals who interact at the WCJ remain as safe as possible based on all the information I know about COVID-19 and its transmission and spread. That has been the mission of the WCJ since the outbreak began
15

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66-1 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 16
and will continue to be as long as it continues. Finally, as before, the last thing the WCSO desires is to be compelled to adopt measures which completely undermine the effective steps the WCSO has taken to plan for, slow, and further guard against the spread of COVID-19.
I understand the statements written in this Declaration are given under penalty of perjury. All of the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, the foregoing is true and correct. FURTHER DECLARANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
Dated and executed this 11th day of June, 2020. s/ Matthew Turner Matthew Turner, Jail Captain, Weld County Sheriff’s Office
16

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66-2 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT I-1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66-3 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT I-2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66-3 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT I-2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66-4 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT I-3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66-4 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT I-3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66-5 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT I-4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66-6 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT I-5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66-7 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT I-6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 66-7 Filed 06/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2

Weld County Sheriff’s Office Detentions Division 970‐400‐2838

EXHIBIT I-6

"Men wanted for hazardous journey. Small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in case of success."

-Earnest Shackleton, 4 Burlington St

2

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 71 Filed 06/29/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: 20-cv-977-PAB-SKC
THOMAS CARRANZA, et al., Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons,
v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of all medically vulnerable individuals incarcerated in the
Weld County Jail and at risk of serious, possibly fatal, harm from COVID-19. Given the large number of inmates at risk within the Weld County Jail who are in need of protection and would benefit from injunctive relief, because Plaintiffs meet the requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b), and because the arguments raised by Defendants go primarily to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims rather than the question of certification, class certification is appropriate in this case. II. PLAINTIFFS HAVE MET THEIR BURDEN WITH RESPECT TO RULE 23(a).
A. Defendant Reams concedes the numerosity of Plaintiff’s proposed Class. In his Response, Defendant Reams “acknowledges [the] number of potential class members.” [Dkt. 64 at 4]. This is likely because the proposed Class encompasses a significant proportion of the inmates at the Weld County Jail and, given the varying lengths of sentences and unpredictable nature of COVID-19, that number may change and make traditional joinder
1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 71 Filed 06/29/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 11
impractical, if not impossible. See [Dkt. 2 at 6]. Accordingly, the proposed Class satisfies the Rule 23(a)(1) numerosity requirement.
B. Plaintiffs’ claims present sufficient issues of fact and law in common with the proposed class.
Plaintiffs have also satisfied the commonality inquiry. To meet the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2), a proposed class’s “claims must depend upon a common contention. . . [and] determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 350. “A finding of commonality requires only a single question of law or fact common to the entire class.” D.G. ex rel. Stricklin v. Devaughn, 594 F.3d 1188, 1195 (10th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). While “mere allegations of systemic violations of the law” do not satisfy the commonality requirement, “every member of the class need not be in a situation identical to that of the named plaintiff,” so long as a common “discrete legal or factual question” exists. Id.
In his Response, Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden with respect to the commonality requirement because “any injunctive relief must inevitably be tailored to unique considerations of each inmate. . . .” [Dkt. 64 at 5]. In addition to being an incorrect statement about the relief requested by Plaintiffs, this assertion also misapprehends the commonality analysis. As stated in Plaintiffs’ Motion, there are multiple questions of law and fact pertaining to the Weld County Jail’s policies and practices regarding COVID-19, including whether the Weld County Jail’s course of conduct has exposed the class to harm and/or a substantial risk of harm. Although the specific medical circumstances of individual class members may vary—as would be the case with almost any health-related class—the question of whether Defendant’s failures to take appropriate preventative measures exposed the proposed Class members to a substantial risk of harm can be answered the same for the class as a whole, such that “an issue that is central to the
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 71 Filed 06/29/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 11
validity of each one of the claims” can be resolved in “one stroke.” See Wal-Mart, 564 U.S at 350. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have satisfied the commonality requirement.
C. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the proposed class. Plaintiffs have similarly met their burden to establish typicality. “Typicality measures whether a sufficient nexus exists between the claims of the named representatives and those of the class at large.” Thompson v. Jiffy Lube Int’l, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 607, 622 (D. Kan. 2008). In contrast to what Defendant Reams contends, see [Dkt. 64 at 5-6], “[t]ypicality does not require that the claims of the class members be identical to the claims of the class plaintiffs,” for “[n]o action could proceed as a class action if each named plaintiff had to uniformly assert the same legal claims or had to have suffered the same injuries as all class members.” Id. (citation omitted). Indeed, “differing fact situations of class members do not defeat typicality . . . so long as the claims of the class representatives and class members are based on the same legal or remedial theory.” Id. (quoting Adamson v. Bowen, 855 F.2d 668, 675 (10th Cir. 1988)). Regardless of the constitutional amendment under which a particular plaintiff’s claims arise, the typicality analysis is the same for both. As stated above, see Part III.B, supra, notwithstanding the various individual characteristics of the named Plaintiffs and proposed Class, a common inquiry guides the resolution of this case; specifically, whether Defendant Reams’s conduct has created a substantial risk of harm and/or death. Furthermore, if the Court should later determine that utilizing different legal standards is necessary for resolving claims brought under the Eighth Amendment versus the Fourteenth Amendment, see [Dkt. 55 at 18 n.9], it can amend the order certifying the class to include subclasses at that time. See F.R.C.P. 23(c)(1)(C), 23(c)(5).
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 71 Filed 06/29/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 11
D. Given the transitory nature of county jail detention, Plaintiffs can adequately represent the proposed Class.
Defendant Reams also incorrectly claims that “Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief are moot,” because the named Plaintiffs have been released from the Weld County Jail. [Dkt. 64 at 6]. However, in cases such as the one at bar where the claim is “capable of repetition, yet evading review,” the termination of a class representative’s claim does not moot the claims of the class as a whole. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 110 n.11 (1975). The United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of a proposed class representative’s release from pretrial detention in Gerstein v. Pugh. In determining that the termination of the named class representative’s individual claim did not moot the claims of the unnamed members of the class, the Court noted:
Pretrial detention is by nature temporary, and it is most unlikely that any given individual could have his constitutional claim decided on appeal before he is either released or convicted. The individual could nonetheless suffer repeated deprivations, and it is certain that other persons similarly situated will be detained under the allegedly unconstitutional procedures. The claim, in short, is one that is distinctly ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ Id. Likewise, in U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 (1980), the Court held that “an action brought on behalf of a class does not become moot upon expiration of the named plaintiff’s substantive claim . . . .” 445 U.S. at 404. In keeping with Gerstein and Geraghty, the Tenth Circuit has determined that “a nascent interest attaches to the proposed class upon the filing of a class complaint” such that termination of the named class representative’s claim does not moot the action as a whole. Lucero v. Bureau of Collection Recovery, Inc., 639 F.3d 1239, 1249 (10th Cir. 2011). The cases cited by Defendant Reams do not warrant a departure from the precedent set forth above. For example, Green v. Branson, 108 F.3d 1296 (10th Cir. 1997), cited by Defendant for the proposition that an inmate’s claim for injunctive relief is moot upon release from the subject facility, [Dkt. 64 at 4], involved a single plaintiff. The reasoning set forth in Gerstein and Geraghty
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 71 Filed 06/29/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 11
obviously does not apply in cases in which there is a single plaintiff. Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 590 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2009) is likewise inapposite, for that case concerned a plaintiff who sought class certification more than two years after judgment on the merits entered in his favor. Id. at 1136. Indeed, Clark specifically noted that the United States Supreme Court
has suggested two situations in which a class may be certified despite the mooting of the named plaintiff’s claim prior to the district court’s class certification decision: (1) when the plaintiff’s claim is ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review,’ and (2) when the plaintiff’s claim is ‘inherently transitory [such] that the trial court will not have even enough time to rule on a motion for class certification before the proposed representative’s individual interest expires. Id. at 1139 (quoting Geraghty, 445 U.S. at 398-400) (emphasis in original). Plaintiffs’ claims on behalf of both pretrial detainees and convicted inmates fall within both exceptions laid out by the Supreme Court. Until Defendant Reams and officials of the Weld County Jail change the policies and procedures surrounding COVID-19 and medically-vulnerable inmates, current and new inmates will continue to be at risk of harm. Furthermore, inmates at the Weld County Jail, whether awaiting trial or serving a sentence pursuant to a criminal conviction, usually spend no more than a year in the facility, at most, since it is solely a county jail. Any one inmate’s time in the Jail is necessarily transitory and will likely end before any federal litigation would. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ release from the Weld County Jail does not moot the motion for class certification, and, for the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion, Plaintiffs can adequately serve as class representatives.
III. PLAINTIFFS HAVE ALSO MET THEIR BURDEN UNDER RULE 23(b)(2). Certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) is proper if the movant shows “that the party
opposing class certification ‘acted or refused to act’ on grounds generally applicable to the class, such that final or declaratory relief is appropriate as to ‘the class as a whole.’” Vallario v. Vandehey, 554 F.3d 1259, 1267 (10th Cir. 2009). The injuries sustained by the proposed class
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 71 Filed 06/29/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 11
members must be “sufficiently similar that they can be addressed in a single injunction that need not differentiate between class members,” id. at 1268 (quotation omitted); however, “[t]hat the claims of individual class members may differ factually should not preclude certification under Rule 23(b)(2) of a claim seeking the application of a common policy.” J.B. ex rel. Hart v. Valdez, 186 F.3d 1280, 1288 (10th Cir. 1999).
Furthermore, though the determination whether class certification is appropriate “entail[s] some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claim,” id. at 350-51, “Rule 23 grants court no license to engage in free-ranging merits inquiries at the certification stage.” Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455, 466 (2013). That is, merits questions may be considered only to the extent “that they are relevant to determining whether Rule 23 prerequisites for class certification are satisfied.” Id.
A. Defendant’s reliance on Shook II is misplaced. Defendant cites Shook v. Bd. of Cty. Commr’s, 543 F.3d 597 (10th Cir. 2008) (“Shook II”) in arguing that Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden under Rule 23(b)(2). However, Shook II is distinguishable from this case. As set forth more fully in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, Plaintiffs have met their burden under Rule 23(b)(2). Through this action, Plaintiffs seek a Court order implementing a single, system-wide process to rectify the violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and to protect them from the threat of COVID-19 exposure by way of, inter alia, physical distancing requirements, increased cleaning protocols, and provision of personal protective equipment. This
6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 71 Filed 06/29/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 11
singular injunctive relief to remedy classwide civil-rights violations is precisely the sort of relief Rule 23(b)(2) was designed to facilitate.1
Shook II is distinguishable in this regard. In that case, plaintiffs sought to certify a class of inmates suffering from a variety of mental illnesses, all of which put the inmates at varying levels of risk and types of harm at the hands of prison officials. Id. at 605-06. By contrast, the proposed Class members here, whether suffering from COPD, over the age of 55, or having a history of smoking or other substance abuse disorders, all face the same risk as a result of Defendant Reams’s inaction: increased complications from COVID-19, including an increased risk of mortality. Likewise, Shook II noted that the “chief difficulty” with respect to plaintiffs’ proposed certification was that “much of the relief plaintiffs seek would require the district court to craft an injunction that distinguishes—based on individual characteristics and circumstances—between how prison officials may treat class members, rather than prescribing a standard of conduct applicable to all class members.” Id. at 605. The same cannot be said here. Again, irrespective of the proposed Class members’ varying conditions that make them medically-vulnerable to COVID-19, the relief Plaintiffs seek—six feet of separation between inmates and staff, single-cell housing, provision of personal protective equipment including masks, thorough cleaning protocols, and related measures—are common practices that apply to all proposed Class members to decrease the risk of
1 Indeed, Plaintiffs’ proposed Class is similar to certified classes around the country seeking adequate protection of their civil rights and from the particular dangers COVID-19 presents to incarcerated individuals. E.g., Valentine v. Collier, No. 4:20-CV-1115, 2020 WL 3491999 (June 27, 2020) (certifying class of current and future inmates detained within a unit for elderly inmates and inmates with health problems); Ahlman v. Barnes, No. SACV 20-835 JGB (SHKx), 2020 WL 2754938 (C.D. Cal. May 26, 2020) (certifying classes of all current and future pre-trial detainees and post-conviction prisoners incarcerated in the Orange County Jail); Cameron v. Bouchard, No. 20-10949, 2020 WL 2569868 (E.D. Mich. May 21, 2020) (certifying subclass of medicallyvulnerable inmates). See also Fraihat v. United States Immigration & Customs Enf’t, 2020 WL 1932570, -- F. Supp. 3d -- (C.D. Cal Apr. 20, 2020) (certifying class of medically-vulnerable detainees at ICE facilities).
7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 71 Filed 06/29/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 11
COVID-19 spreading among the population at the Weld County Jail, without differentiation for varying medical conditions. Shook II does not warrant denying class certification in this case.
B. Defendant’s additional arguments with respect to Rule 23(b)(2) are similarly unavailing.
Defendant Reams further alleges two purported deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ showing under Rule 23(b)(2). [Dkt. 64 at 10]. Neither provides an adequate basis to deny class certification.
With respect to a purported lack of allegations regarding “how the Sheriff here has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class,” [Dkt. 64 at 10], there is ample evidence in the record regarding Defendant’s and the Weld County Jail’s deficient response to COVID-19. See, e.g., [Dkt. 1] (Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Expedited Hearing with exhibits), [Dkt. 62 at 3-9] (Plaintiffs’ Motion for Forthwith Hearing Regarding Defendant’s Non-Compliance with the Court’s Preliminary Injunction). The Court has already determined that there are sufficient allegations regarding Defendant’s failures with respect to the proposed Class such that a preliminary injunction is warranted. Given that Plaintiffs have established a “likelihood of success on the merits” regarding Defendant’s inaction, it is clear that Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the Sheriff here has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class.
Defendant’s second argument against class certification appears to rest largely on his contention that the requested classwide relief is “totally unmanageable.” [Dkt. 64 at 8]. As an initial matter, the fact that preliminary classwide injunctive relief has already been granted in this case illustrates that classwide relief is feasible and possible. See [Dkt. 55] (granting in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction).
Furthermore, the scope of the requested classwide relief is a merits determination, and thus not eligible for review upon a motion for class certification. See Amgen, 568 U.S. at 466; United
8

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 71 Filed 06/29/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 11
States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Co-op., 532 U.S. 483, 496 (2001) (courts enjoy broad discretion in fashioning injunctive relief). Should the Court determine that Defendant Reams’s contentions regarding the feasibility of Plaintiffs’ requested injunctive relief are meritorious, it can address those contentions in fashioning the final remedy in this case. However, such a possibility does not warrant denying class certification.
IV. THE COURT DID NOT REPUDIATE THE PROPOSED CLASS. Lastly, Defendant Reams’s contention that the Court rejected Plaintiff’s proposed Class in
its May 11, 2020 Order is incorrect. Notably, in granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the Court did not rule on Plaintiffs’ proposed class definition. See [Dkt. 55 at 37-38]. The Court’s choosing a different definition of persons to be protected for the purposes of granting preliminary injunctive relief is not equivalent to a determination regarding class certification—it instead reflects the Court’s determination of the breadth of its Order under the standards and requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65.
Furthermore, if the Court were to find Plaintiffs’ proposed class definition too broad when applying the relevant Rule 23 standards, it is within the Court’s discretion to modify it, rather than rejecting class certification outright. E.g., Colo. Cross-Disability Coal. v. Taco Bell Corp., 184 F.R.D. 354, 357 (D. Colo. 1999) (court has “discretion to alter, expand, subdivide or modify the class definition”) (citing Vaszlavik v. Storage Tech., Corp., 175 F.R.D. 672, 683 (D. Colo. 1997); West v. Capitol Fed. Savings & Loan Ass’n, 558 F.2d 977, 982 (10th Cir. 1977)). Defendant’s contention that certification should be denied based on the Court’s prior Order should be rejected.
V. CONCLUSION Defendant’s Response is largely premised on his assertion that, given the constraints of the
Weld County Jail, any sort of classwide relief is “totally unmanageable.” Plaintiffs have no doubt that managing an unprecedented crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic is a difficult and at times
9

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 71 Filed 06/29/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 11

overwhelming task. However, this does not justify a denial of class certification; indeed, without the ability to bring claims as a class, current and future inmates of the Weld County Jail will continue to face a substantial risk of harm. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above and in Plaintiffs’ Motion, the proposed Class should be certified.
Dated: June 29, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

s/ Daniel D. Williams Daniel D. Williams Lauren E. Groth HUTCHINSON BLACK AND COOK, LLC 921 Walnut Street, Suite 200 Boulder, Colorado 80302 (303) 442-6514 Williams@hbcboulder.com Groth@hbcboulder.com
In cooperation with the ACLU Foundation of Colorado
Mark Silverstein Rebecca T. Wallace Sara R. Neel AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF COLORADO 303 E. 17th Avenue, Suite 350 Denver, Colorado 80203 (720) 402-3114 msilverstein@aclu-co.org rtwallace@aclu-co.org sneel@aclu-co.org Counsel for Plaintiffs Barnum and Lewis

David G. Maxted Maxted Law LLC 1543 Champa Street Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 720-717-0877 dave@maxtedlaw.com
Andy McNulty Michael P. Fairhurst David A. Lane Darold W. Killmer KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP 1543 Champa St. Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 571-1000 amcnulty@kln-law.com mfairhurst@kln-law.com dlane@kln-law.com dkillmer@kn-law.com
Jamie Hughes Hubbard STIMSON STANCIL LABRANCHE HUBBARD, LLC Phone: 720.689.8909 Email: hubbard@sslhlaw.com

and

Counsel for Plaintiffs Carranza, Martinez,

Propes, and Hunter

10

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 71 Filed 06/29/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 29th day of June, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification to the following counsel: Matthew Hegarty Andrew Ringel John Peters HALL & EVANS LLC 1001 17th Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 hegartym@hallevans.com ringel@hallevans.com jpeters@hallevans.com
s/ Ella Ford Ella Ford
11

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 78 Filed 07/02/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Case No. 20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC
THOMAS CARRANZA, JESUS MARTINEZ, RICHARD BARNUM, THOMAS LEWIS, MICHAEL WARD, COLBY PROPES, and CHAD HUNTER,
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons,
v.
STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant. _____________________________________________________________________
ORDER _____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Forthwith Hearing
Regarding Defendant’s Non-Compliance with the Court’s Preliminary Injunction [Docket
No. 62].
This case concerns the Weld County Jail’s housing of medically vulnerable inmates1 during the COVID-19 pandemic. On May 11, 2020, the Court entered a
1 The Court’s preliminary injunction order defined “medically vulnerable” people as “people who are 65 years and older, have chronic lung disease or moderate to severe asthma, have serious heart conditions, are immunocompromised, have severe obesity, have diabetes, have chronic kidney disease and undergoing dialysis, or have liver disease.” Docket No. 55 at 5-6 (citing “People Who Are at Higher Risk for Severe Illness,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-at-higherrisk.html (last accessed May 8, 2020)).

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 78 Filed 07/02/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
preliminary injunction against defendant in his official capacity as Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado. Docket No. 55. The preliminary injunction first required defendant to compile a list of medically vulnerable inmates held at the Weld County Jail (the “screening procedure”). Id. at 37-38. The preliminary injunction also required defendant to institute five policies and procedures in the Jail. Id. at 38-39. As relevant here, those requirements included “[a] policy ensuring that, to the maximum extent possible considering the Jail’s physical layout, population level, and classification needs, medically vulnerable inmates are ‘socially distanced’ from other inmates housed in the Jail” (the “social distancing policy”) and “[a] procedure, as part of the intake of new inmates into the Jail, for medically vulnerable inmates to be single-celled or otherwise socially distanced, to the maximum extent possible considering the Jail’s physical layout and classification needs, while housed in the transition unit” (the “intake procedure”). Id. at 38. Defendant filed a report detailing his compliance with the preliminary injunction on May 18, 2020. Docket No. 60.
On May 21, 2020, plaintiffs filed the instant motion, requesting that the Court hold a hearing on what they claim is defendant’s non-compliance with the preliminary injunction. Docket No. 62 at 1. Specifically, plaintiffs seek a hearing to challenge defendant’s compliance with the preliminary injunction’s screening procedure, social distancing policy, and intake procedure requirements. Id. at 3. Defendant opposes the motion. See Docket No. 66.
The Court will deny the motion. A district court has the authority to conduct evidentiary compliance hearings to determine if a party is in compliance with the court’s
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 78 Filed 07/02/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
orders. Cf. Battle v. Anderson, 594 F.2d 786, 789 (10th Cir. 1979) (discussing a district
court’s compliance hearings related to overcrowded penal institutions). However, the
purpose of such a hearing in this case is unclear to the Court. Plaintiffs do not ask that
defendant be held in civil contempt for violating the preliminary injunction order. See
Docket No. 62; cf. Jeff D. v. Otter, 643 F.3d 278, 285-86 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing
where a compliance hearing may use the burdens of proof and standard for civil
contempt). And plaintiffs explicitly state that they are not asking the Court to modify the
preliminary injunction order. See Docket No. 72 at 1 (“Plaintiffs do not seek to modify or expand the Court’s order.”).2 Rather, plaintiffs’ reply clarifies that they seek a
hearing because of an “imbalance in access to relevant information.” See id. at 1-2
(arguing that defendant, who controls the Jail, has “refused to provide” information
relevant to determining compliance). However, plaintiffs fail to explain why this
2 Despite this representation, it appears to the Court that the impetus for plaintiffs’ motion is the perceived inadequacy of the preliminary injunction order, not defendant’s compliance with the order. For example, plaintiffs contend that the screening questions used by defendant do not “reasonably ensure that the screener will uncover whether the inmate is medically vulnerable.” Docket No. 62 at 8. But defendant’s screening questions track the language of the preliminary injunction, compare Docket No. 55 at 37-38 with Docket No. 60 at 2-3, and thus are not evidence of defendant’s non-compliance with the preliminary injunction. Rather, plaintiffs are arguing that the language of the Court’s preliminary injunction should be modified to, in their view, more accurately identify medically vulnerable inmates. Similarly, plaintiffs’ arguments as to defendant’s social distancing policy rely in part on the assertion that COVID-19 testing is now widely available and should be used in the Jail. Docket No. 62 at 5-7. The Court found in the preliminary injunction order that “it [was] not clear from the record that the Jail has the quantity of test kits necessary to implement a wideranging testing procedure or that the Jail can acquire a sufficient number of test kits.” Docket No. 55 at 33. The Court now requiring the Jail to implement a testing protocol would be a modification of the preliminary injunction order, not an evaluation of defendant’s compliance with the order as it exists.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 78 Filed 07/02/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4

information must be probed at a hearing rather than through the discovery process. Thus, the Court concludes that a compliance hearing is not necessary at this time.3
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Forthwith Hearing Regarding Defendant’s Non-Compliance with the Court’s Preliminary Injunction [Docket No. 62] is DENIED,

DATED July 2, 2020.

BY THE COURT:

PHILIP A. BRIMMER Chief United States District Judge

3 Nothing in this order should be construed as relieving defendant’s obligation to comply with the Court’s preliminary injunction order.
4

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 19
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: 20-cv-977-PAB-SKC THOMAS CARRANZA; JESUS MARTINEZ; RICHARD BARNUM; THOMAS LEWIS; MICHAEL WARD; COLBY PROPES; and CHAD HUNTER,
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, CERTIFICATION OF A CLASS AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS
COUNSEL, AND PERMISSION TO POST CLASS NOTICE
Plaintiffs Jesus Martinez and Chad Hunter (collectively “Plaintiffs”), through counsel, and Defendant Steven Reams, through counsel, move for preliminary approval of a class action settlement, certification of a class, appointment of class counsel, and permission to post class notice. In support of this motion, they state as follows:
INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs brought this case as a class action, alleging Defendant Sheriff Reams acted with deliberate indifference to the lives and health of medically vulnerable persons in his custody in the Weld County Jail (“WCJ”) by failing to take necessary measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and to protect such medically vulnerable persons from COVID-19. Plaintiffs brought two claims for declaratory and injunctive relief under 42

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 19
U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violation of the Due Process Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment, and for cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Defendant Reams denied any wrongdoing and contended that he was taking appropriate measures to protect inmates at the WCJ.
This Court held a preliminary injunction hearing in this matter on April 30, 2020. By Order dated May 11, 2020, this Court entered a detailed preliminary injunction setting forth steps Defendant must take to identify and to protect medically vulnerable inmates at the Weld County Jail. [Dkt. 55]. The preliminary injunction has been extended multiple times, most recently through December 9, 2020. [Dkt. 93].
With the benefit of this Court’s preliminary injunction ruling, the parties engaged in a protracted, arms-length negotiation to attempt to resolve this dispute. Those efforts have proven successful. The parties now bring this motion seeking preliminary approval of their class action settlement and approval of a settlement class, which if approved would result in the entry of a detailed Consent Decree, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, that ensures that measures remain in place to protect class members from COVID-19 within the WCJ through the duration of this public health emergency.
Preliminary Approval of the Parties’ Settlement Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) requires the “court’s approval” for any settlement that includes certification of a class. Before approving a class settlement, the Court must hold a hearing to determine whether the settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” after considering whether: (A) the class representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the class; (B) the proposal was negotiated at arms-length; (C) the relief provided for the class is adequate; and (D) the proposal treats class members equitably relative to each
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 19
other. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). The Tenth Circuit has recently affirmed that the key questions when undertaking this inquiry are whether: (1) the settlement was fairly and honestly negotiated, (2) serious legal and factual questions placed the litigation's outcome in doubt, (3) the immediate recovery was more valuable than the mere possibility of a more favorable outcome after further litigation, and (4) [the parties] believed the settlement was fair and reasonable. See Elna Sefcovic, LLC v. TEP Rocky Mtn., LLC, 807 F. App’x 752, 757 (10th Cir. 2020) (quoting Tennille v. W. Union Co., 785 F.3d 422, 434 (10th Cir. 2015)). The settlement the parties seek to have approved by this Court meets all of these criteria.
A. The Settlement Was Fairly and Honestly Negotiated. The proposed Consent Decree that the parties have placed before this Court was negotiated at arms-length by attorneys with no conflicts of interest who vigorously advocated for their respective clients’ positions. The negotiations began in July 2020 with telephone calls among counsel and exchanges of draft settlement papers. When the negotiations stalled, a breakthrough was achieved through direct phone calls between the Legal Director of the ACLU of Colorado and the County Attorney for Weld County. Once back on track, multiple drafts of a proposed agreement were exchanged, with compromises made by both sides. That spirited, arms-length negotiation process ultimately proved successful in allowing the parties to achieve a resolution that both sides agree will promote safety in the WCJ with respect to COVID-19, while allowing Sheriff Reams to protect the public and operate the WCJ as required by law. There has been no suggestion of any conflicts of interest with respect to the negotiation of this agreement, and there were none.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 19
B. Serious Legal and Factual Questions Placed the Litigation’s Outcome in Doubt.
While Plaintiffs’ counsel believe that Plaintiffs would have prevailed at trial, they had no certainty as to what the scope of relief would be in an action such as this one. Given that COVID-19 is a new disease and the scope of knowledge about it is constantly evolving, there is inherent uncertainty as to what relief the Court would ultimately order if liability were found at trial. For his part, Defendant Sheriff Reams has continued to maintain that he did not act with deliberate indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs, and if this case were to proceed to trial, Defendant believes this Court would have determined the Sheriff has not been deliberately indifferent. In light of the foregoing, both sides perceived uncertainty as to the litigation’s outcome if the matter proceeded to trial.
C. Immediate Recovery Is More Valuable Than Proceeding To Trial. Both sides to this dispute have used settlement negotiation to achieve a creative result which includes immediate protections that may not have been provided even if Plaintiffs prevailed at trial. For example, the proposed Consent Decree contains modified arrest standards for the WCJ that would be hard to have achieved through litigation, and detailed information-sharing requirements and restrictions that similarly would have been hard to achieve through litigation. Moreover, given the immediacy of the COVID-19 crisis, waiting until after trial in mid-2021 to secure the relief agreed to in the proposed Consent Decree would have sacrificed much of the value of litigating in the first place. D. The Parties’ Settlement Is Fair and Reasonable. The parties’ settlement negotiations began with an understanding to use the requirements this Court imposed through its preliminary injunction as a baseline for the negotiations, as those requirements already had the Court’s imprimatur of fairness. The
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 19
parties then considered each side’s requests for modifications to those procedures, as well as Plaintiffs’ demand for attorney’s fees. Key terms of the final agreements reached in the accompanying proposed Consent Decree are as follows:
1) For purposes of the proposed Consent Decree, the designation of who is “medically vulnerable” is defined in line with U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) guidance current as of the date the proposed Consent Decree and Final Judgment was submitted to the Court, yet subject to modification if the CDC’s guidance changes;
2) WCJ will identify medically vulnerable inmates during booking and intake, including screening for specific medical conditions set forth in the proposed Consent Decree, in English or Spanish at each inmate’s election. Persons identified as medically vulnerable will be protected from exposure to others during the remainder of the intake process to the extent possible;
3) WCJ will attempt to single-cell medically vulnerable inmates in the intake/transition units consistent with CDC guidelines, and the Consent Decree contains specific procedures to minimize exposure to others if single cells are not available based on the population size of WCJ;
4) WCJ will continue to limit exposure of medically vulnerable persons in the general jail population, including with respect to cell assignments and with respect to time spent outside of cells;
5) WCJ will permit the maximum amount of daily out-of-cell time for inmates consistent with social distancing protocols and allowable cohorting;
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 19
6) WCJ will medically isolate COVID-19-positive inmates in an isolation unit consistent with CDC guidelines and ensure that medical isolation for COVID-19 inmates is in a non-punitive environment, allowing access to personal and recreational items which can be effectively sanitized;
7) WCJ will continue stringent enhanced sanitation procedures throughout the jail to help control the spread of COVID-19;
8) WCJ will distribute masks, with the option to provide two cloth masks per inmate for non-medically vulnerable persons, and disposable masks for medically vulnerable persons, with the disposable masks to be replaced at the frequency consistent with CDC guidelines and manufacturer recommendations;
9) To help limit the spread of COVID-19 in the community outside of the jail, inmates will be given masks to take with them upon release from the WCJ;
10) Medically vulnerable inmates will be regularly monitored by healthcare professionals for COVID-19 symptoms;
11) WCJ will provide testing for inmates for COVID-19 consistent with CDC guidelines;
12) Remote visitation opportunities will be continued; 13) Inmates will receive regular information and updates regarding COVID-19
prevention; 14) Persons identified as “medically vulnerable” at intake will be provided with
a document stating that they have been so designated;
6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 19
15) Defendant will maintain modified arrest standards, varying somewhat depending on the status of an ongoing jail construction project, that will remain in place for the duration of the COVID-19 emergency. These modified arrest standards, set forth as an attachment to the proposed Consent Decree, restrict who WCJ will accept, by category of offense;
16) On a regular basis, Defendant will advise chiefs of police in Weld County to be judicious with jail space and to minimize the scope of arrestees in their jurisdictions and maximize the number of persons subject to arrest who are issued summonses or personal recognizance bonds in their jurisdictions;
17) Every two weeks, WCJ will provide the Chief Judge for the Nineteenth Judicial District of Colorado and the Colorado Division of Adult Parole a list of all inmates housed at WCJ, with a request to the Chief Judge for a docket review for potential judicial action;
18) Defendant will comply with robust data reporting requirements to Plaintiffs’ counsel, so as to allow class counsel to monitor the performance of WCJ under the Consent Decree. Plaintiffs, and Class counsel when acting on behalf of class members, agree not to circumvent these agreed data reporting requirements by making additional requests under the Colorado Open Records Act or Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act relating to WCJ’s COVID-19 response or population statistics;
19) Plaintiffs and the Class will release claims for injunctive and declaratory relief arising from COVID-19 at the WCJ, and associated costs and attorney’s fees, accruing through the date of the Consent Decree. The
7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 19
release does not include claims concerning conduct that occurs after the date the Consent Decree is entered, and it does not include any money damages claims; 20) The duration of the Consent Decree is through the time that the Executive Order of the Governor of the State of Colorado declaring a statewide emergency for COVID-19 expires and is not renewed or replaced with an equivalent declaration; 21) Defendant will pay counsel for Plaintiffs $122,387.60 for attorney’s fees and costs; and 22) The parties agree that the Consent Decree is entered into for purposes of settlement and should not be construed as an admission of wrongdoing. All parties believe the foregoing terms are a fair and reasonable resolution to this dispute. The resolution contains detailed, concrete steps that are consistent with CDC best practices. They reflect the strong desire of all parties to ensure that COVID-19 exposure at WCJ is minimized to the extent reasonably possible. For the foregoing reasons, the parties request that the Court provide its preliminary approval of the proposed settlement embodied in the Consent Decree, and find that it satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). Certification of Settlement Class and Appointment of Class Counsel Plaintiffs and Defendant request that this Court certify a settlement class in this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), and that it appoint counsel for Plaintiffs as class counsel. The settlement class the parties seek to have certified is a class of the following individuals:
8

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 19
All past, present, and future inmates housed within the Weld County Jail from April 7, 2020 through the “COVID-19 Emergency End Date” who are “medically vulnerable.” An inmate is “medically vulnerable” if, pursuant to CDC guidelines for correctional facilities like the WCJ which exist as of the date this proposed Consent Decree and Final Judgment was submitted to the Court, the inmate has one or more of the following conditions: is 65 years and older; has chronic lung disease including COPD; has moderate to severe asthma; has serious heart conditions such as heart failure, coronary artery disease or cardiomyopathies; has sickle cell disease; is immunocompromised; has severe obesity (e.g. BMI of 30 or higher); has diabetes; has chronic kidney disease and is undergoing dialysis; has liver disease; has cancer; is pregnant; or is a former or current cigarette smoker. The “COVID-19 Emergency End Date” is the date on which Executive Order D 2020 205 issued by Colorado Governor Jared Polis, Declaring a Disaster Emergency Due to the Presence of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Colorado, as subsequently amended or extended, expires and is not replaced by a similar Executive Order in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. This proposed settlement class fully satisfies all of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and specifically for certification of a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). A. The Proposed Class Representatives The two proposed class representatives fall within the high-risk populations who are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 and particularly likely to suffer severe illness, lifealtering complications, or death as a result of exposure to the virus.1 The proposed class representatives are Plaintiff Jesus Martinez and Plaintiff Chad Hunter. Both of the proposed class representatives are being held at WCJ.
1 Five of the original plaintiffs in this action voluntarily dismissed their claims because they have been released or are in the process of being released from WCJ.
9

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 19
B. The Proposed Class Satisfies the Requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 232 Class certification is proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. In addition, the proposed class must be certifiable under one of the three sub-provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b). Here, Plaintiffs seek certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), because the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.
1. The proposed class complies with Rule 23(a) i. The proposed class is so numerous that joinder would be impracticable.
A class must be sufficiently numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). The impracticability of the joinder requirement does not require that joinder is impossible, but only that the plaintiffs “will suffer a strong litigational hardship or inconvenience if joinder is required.” Cook v. Rockwell Intern. Corp., 151 F.R.D. 378, 384 (D. Colo. 1993). “In determining whether a proposed class meets the numerosity requirement, ‘the exact number of potential members need not be shown, ‘and a court ‘may make common sense assumptions to support a finding that joinder
2 Defendant states he jointly moves for class certification for purposes of settlement only. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) (allowing certification of “class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement”). If the Court does not approve this settlement and enter the Consent Decree and Final Judgment, or if the settlement is otherwise not finalized, then Defendant reserves the right to contest class certification.
10

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 19
would be impracticable.’” In re Thornburh Mortgage, Inc. Sec. Litig., 912 F. Supp. 2d 1178, 1221 (D.N.M. 2012) (internal quotation omitted). The parties estimate that 69% of the WCJ’s current population of 500 inmates is medically vulnerable according to CDC guidance current as of the date and time this Joint Motion was submitted. The class also includes a large number of unknown and unnamed future class members, who will be detained in the Weld County Jail in the future and are medically vulnerable to COVID-19. Given these numbers, and the fact that the class also includes persons who will be arrested and detained at the jail in the future, joinder is impracticable and numerosity is satisfied. See Helmer v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2014 WL 1133299 at *3-4 (D. Colo. Mar. 21, 2014); Newberg on Class Actions § 25:4 (4th ed. 2016) (“Even a small class of fewer than 10 actual members may be upheld if an indeterminate number of individuals are likely to become class members in the future or if the identity or location of many class members is unknown for good cause.”); Jack v. Am. Linen Supply Co., 498 F.2d 122, 124 (5th Cir. 1974) (numerosity requirement satisfied when class included “unknown, unnamed future” class members rendering joinder “certainly impracticable”).
ii. The proposed class representatives present issues of fact and law in common with the class.
To satisfy commonality, the “[p]laintiff must allege a ‘common contention of such a nature that it is capable of class-wide resolution – which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.’” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). “What matters to class certification . . . is not the raising of common ‘questions’ – even in droves – but rather, the capacity of a class-wide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). For the purposes of
11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 19
commonality, “even a single common question will do.” Id. at 359. Courts have repeatedly found commonality is met where the class’s claims arise from a common course of conduct on the part of the defendant. See Kerns v. Spectralink Corp., 2013 WL 27380785, at *2 (D. Colo. July 1, 2003). Likewise, in civil rights lawsuits challenging conditions of detention, commonality is satisfied where the lawsuit challenges “systemic policies and practices that allegedly expose inmates to a substantial risk of harm,” even where there are “individual factual differences among class members.” Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 681-82 (9th Cir. 2014) (collecting cases across the country).
In this case, there are multiple common questions of law and fact pertaining to the WCJ’s policies and practices regarding COVID-19. These include questions of whether the WCJ’s course of conduct has exposed the class to harm and/or a substantial risk of harm due to its deliberate indifference to the risks of COVID-19, and whether WCJ has failed to take appropriate preventative measures on a system-wide basis. Even more importantly, the answers to these questions drive the resolution of this litigation and have resulted in the proposed Consent Decree, which aims to protect medically vulnerable inmates from exposure to, and death or serious injury from, COVID-19 to the maximum extent possible while they are housed in the WCJ.
iii. The proposed class representatives’ claims are typical of those of the class.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) requires that the putative class representatives’ claims be typical of those of the class. “[A] named plaintiff’s claim is ‘typical’ when it arises out of the same event, practice or course of conduct of the defendant, and is based on the same legal theory on which the class claims are predicated.” Murphy v. Lenderlive Network, Inc., 2014 WL 5396165, at *4 (D. Colo. Oct. 22, 2014). “Provided the claims of the Named
12

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 19
Plaintiffs and class members are based on the same legal or remedial theory, differing fact situations of the class members do not defeat typicality.” DG ex rel. Stricklin v. Devaugh, 594 F.3d 1188, 1198-99 (10th Cir. 2010). For the same reason that there are overwhelmingly common issues of fact and law, the Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the class. See Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 349 n.5 (“The commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) tend to merge.”).
Here, the named Plaintiffs have the same claims and face the same potential harms as members of the proposed class. Named Plaintiffs, similarly to members of the class, are both medically vulnerable.
iv. The proposed class representatives and class counsel can adequately represent the case.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) requires that “the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” The adequacy requirement ensures that there are no potential “conflicts of interest between named parties and the class they seek to represent.” Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 625 (1997). “Resolution of two questions determines legal adequacy: (1) do the named plaintiffs and their counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class members, and (2) with the named plaintiffs and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class?” Rutter & Wilbanks Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 314 F. 3d 1180, 1187-88 (10th Cir. 2002) (internal citation omitted). Adequate representation is usually presumed absent contrary evidence. See 1 Newberg on Class Actions § 3:72 (5th Ed. 2019).
First, there is no conflict between the named Plaintiffs and the members of the class. As described above, the named Plaintiffs and class members have the same injury and seek the same relief. Likewise, Plaintiffs’ counsel, consisting of Hutchinson, Black
13

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 19
and Cook, LLC in cooperation with the ACLU of Colorado and Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP; Stimson Stancil LaBranche Hubbard LLC; and Maxted Law LLC, are well-qualified and highly experienced in class action and civil rights matters, and have done extensive work investigating this action. Counsel are exceptionally well versed in class actions and constitutional law, with decades of experience litigating such cases, and have sufficient resources to vigorously prosecute this case.
2. The proposed class is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) Certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) is appropriate where, as here, defendants “acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class[.]” A court may certify a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) class where “a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the class.” Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830, 851-52 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). The claims raised and the relief sought by Plaintiffs in this action are precisely the sort that Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) was designed to facilitate: “[c]ivil rights cases against parties charged with unlawful, class based discrimination are prime examples” of proper (b)(2) actions. Amchem Prods., 521 U.S. at 614. Here, Plaintiffs seek uniform standardized practices and procedures to protect inmates from exposure to COVID-19. This system-wide, process-based relief is exactly the type of single injunction that would benefit all members of the proposed class – and falls squarely within the purview of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) as a result. In light of the foregoing, the parties respectfully request a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) class be certified.
14

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 19
APPOINTMENT OF CLASS COUNSEL Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1), at the time of class certification, the Court “must appoint class counsel.” Undersigned counsel for Plaintiffs who brought this action respectfully request to be appointed class counsel. Undersigned counsel are a group of experienced civil rights lawyers from the ACLU of Colorado, Killmer, Lane and Newman, LLP, Hutchinson Black and Cook, LLC, Stimson Stancil Labranche Hubbard, LLC, and Maxted Law LLC who quickly organized in the early days of the COVID-19 crisis to protect inmates in the WCJ. They have devoted substantial resources to prosecute this case, acting on short notice to secure a preliminary injunction, and have continued to advocate zealously for their clients. Counsel have years of experience handling class actions in federal and state courts in Colorado and elsewhere in the United States. Their work on this matter to date demonstrates their competence to be appointed as class counsel here.
NOTICE TO THE CLASS Notice is not required to certify a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) class, which is the Rule 23 subsection under which the parties propose to certify a class. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(A) (“For any class certified under Rule 23(b)(1) or (b)(2), the court may direct appropriate notice to the class.” (emphasis added)); see also Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 362 (“The Rule provides no opportunity for (b)(1) or (b)(2) class members to opt out, and does not even oblige the District Court to afford them notice of the action.”); Skinner v. Uphoff, 175 F. App’x 255, 257-58 (10th Cir. 2006) (“Where, as here, a class is certified under Rule 23(b)(2), notice is discretionary.”) (affirming trial court’s decision not to provide notice to inmate class members before granting summary judgment, in a civil
15

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 19
rights case seeking only injunctive and declaratory relief regarding conditions of confinement); Pelt v. Utah, 539 F.3d 1271, 1289 (10th Cir. 2008) (“Due process does not require notice for absent class members in all actions under Rule 23(b)(2), as long as the class members were adequately represented.”). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1) does require notice to absent class members prior to settlement, however. That notice must be provided “in a reasonable manner.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B).
Though the Court has the discretion to select whatever manner of notice it believes appropriate, the parties suggest a “reasonable manner” to provide notice would be to post notices in portions of the WCJ that house medically vulnerable inmates where it is visible to them. The form of the notice proposed to be posted, to which the proposed Consent Decree attached hereto as Exhibit A would be appended, is attached hereto as Exhibit B. It is not necessary to give individual notices to all class members, for several reasons. First, this Court has already held an evidentiary hearing and has already made substantial factual findings about COVID-19 and the WCJ, so objections about the scope of the Consent Decree will likely add little new information. Second, the proposed Consent Decree shows the myriad agreed steps which Defendant and the WCJ will continue to take to protect medically vulnerable inmates from COVID-19. While class members are entitled to submit objections, providing posted notice is a “reasonable manner” to inform inmates of this settlement and the inmates’ option to file an objection. It would also be a significant and unnecessary expenditure of resources for WCJ staff to prepare to distribute notices to individual inmates and then collect objections, when the staff’s time and resources should instead be devoted to protecting the health and safety of inmates.
16

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 19

And finally, posted notice is reasonable here because inmates “were adequately represented” by class counsel. Pelt, 539 F.3d at 1289. Plaintiffs’ counsel have thoroughly investigated and litigated this case. They have continued to monitor the situation in the WCJ, have continued to communicate with inmates, and have vigorously represented the interests of all class members throughout this litigation and the negotiation of this proposed class settlement. In short, all class members were adequately represented.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the parties respectfully request that the Court: (a) preliminarily approve the settlement embodied in the proposed Consent Decree attached as Exhibit A; (b) certify a class for purposes of settlement as described herein; (c) appoint the counsel listed below for Plaintiffs as class counsel; (d) approve the form of notice attached hereto as Exhibit B and instruct Defendant to post one copy of it in each WCJ housing unit which houses medically vulnerable inmates; and (e) set a date and time for a fairness hearing approximately six weeks from the date the Court grants this motion.

Dated and jointly and respectfully submitted this 30th day of November, 2020.

s/ Daniel David Williams Daniel David Williams Lauren Elizabeth Groth HUTCHINSON BLACK & COOK, LLC williams@hbcboulder.com groth@hbcboulder.com
Mark Silverstein Rebecca Teitelbaum Wallace Sara R. Neel AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNIONDENVER msilverstein@aclu-co.org rtwallace@aclu-co.org

s/ Matthew J. Hegarty Matthew J. Hegarty, Esq. Andrew D. Ringel, Esq. John F. Peters, Esq. HALL & EVANS, LLC hegartym@hallevans.com ringela@hallevans.com petersj@hallevans.com Attorneys for Defendant Sheriff Steven Reams

17

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 19
sneel@aclu-co.org Darold W. Killmer David A. Lane Andrew Joseph McNulty Michael Paul Fairhurst KILLMER LANE & NEWMAN LLP dkillmer@kln-law.com dlane@kln-law.com amcnulty@kln-law.com mfairhurst@kln-law.com David George Maxted MAXTED LAW LLC dave@maxtedlaw.com Jamie Hughes Hubbard STIMSON STANCIL LABRANCHE HUBBARD LLC hubbard@sslhlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Thomas Carranza, Jesus Martinez, Richard Barnum, Thomas Lewis, Michael Lewis, Colby Propes, and Chad Hunter
18

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 19

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF)

I hereby certify that on this 30th day of November, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, CERTIFICATION OF A CLASS AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS COUNSEL, AND PERMISSION TO POST CLASS NOTICE was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court which will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses:

Daniel David Williams Lauren Elizabeth Groth Hutchinson Black & Cook, LLC williams@hbcboulder.com groth@hbcboulder.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Thomas Carranza, Jesus Martinez, Richard Barnum, Thomas Lewis, Michael Lewis, Colby Propes, and Chad Hunter

Mark Silverstein Rebecca Teitelbaum Wallace Sara R. Neel American Civil Liberties Union-Denver msilverstein@aclu-co.org rtwallace@aclu-co.org sneel@aclu-co.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs Thomas Carranza, Jesus Martinez, Richard Barnum, Thomas Lewis, Michael Lewis, Colby Propes, and Chad Hunter

Darold W. Killmer David A. Lane Andrew Joseph McNulty Michael Paul Fairhurst Killmer Lane & Newman LLP dkillmer@kln-law.com dlane@kln-law.com amcnulty@kln-law.com mfairhurst@kln-law.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Thomas Carranza, Jesus Martinez, Richard Barnum, Thomas Lewis, Michael Lewis, Colby Propes, and Chad Hunter

David George Maxted MAXTED LAW LLC dave@maxtedlaw.com
Jamie Hughes Hubbard Stimson Stancil LaBranche Hubbard LLC hubbard@sslhlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Thomas Carranza, Jesus Martinez, Richard Barnum, Thomas Lewis, Michael Lewis, Colby Propes, and Chad Hunter

s/ Marlene Wilson Marlene Wilson, Legal Assistant

19

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96-1 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 17
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC THOMAS CARRANZA; JESUS MARTINEZ; RICHARD BARNUM; THOMAS LEWIS; MICHAEL WARD; COLBY PROPES; and CHAD HUNTER,
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
[proposed] CONSENT DECREE AND FINAL JUDGMENT
For good cause shown, including based on the evidence admitted at the evidentiary hearing in this matter on April 30, 2020, and in light of the parties’ stipulation to the terms set forth below, the Court now Orders as follows:
I. DEFINITIONS “COVID-19” means the disease caused by the 2019 novel coronavirus SARSCoV-2 and all strains thereof. “Plaintiffs” means Plaintiffs Thomas Carranza, Jesus Martinez, Richard Barnum, Thomas Lewis, Michael Ward, Colby Propes, and Chad Hunter. “Inmates” means and includes persons who are housed within the Weld County Jail, including all persons who are either sentenced to the Weld County Jail, or pretrial detainees, or sentenced holds for the Colorado Department of Corrections.
EXHIBIT A

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96-1 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 17
“Class” means all past, present, and future inmates housed within the Weld County Jail from April 7, 2020 through the COVID-19 Emergency End Date (as defined herein) who meet the definition of “medically vulnerable inmates” as defined herein.
“Defendant” means Steven Reams, in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Weld County.
“WCJ” means Weld County Jail. “Preliminary Injunction Order” means this Court’s Order dated May 11, 2020 preliminarily enjoining conduct described therein, as subsequently amended and extended. “CDC” means the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention within the United States Department of Health and Human Services. “EPA” means the United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Medically vulnerable” means inmates who, pursuant to CDC guidelines for correctional facilities like the WCJ which exist as of the date this proposed Consent Decree and Final Judgment was submitted to the Court, have one or more of the following conditions: are 65 years and older; have chronic lung disease including COPD; have moderate to severe asthma; have serious heart conditions such as heart failure, coronary artery disease or cardiomyopathies; have sickle cell disease; are immunocompromised; have severe obesity (e.g. BMI of 30 or higher); have diabetes; have chronic kidney disease and are undergoing dialysis; have liver disease; have cancer; are pregnant; or are former or current cigarette smokers.
II. RECITALS A. On or about April 7, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the abovecaptioned civil action, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC (the “Lawsuit”), in which
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96-1 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 17
they asserted official capacity claims against Defendant contending their constitutional rights were violated in connection with Defendant’s response to COVID-19 at the WCJ, and seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and attorney fees and costs only, and not any compensatory or punitive damages.
B. On or about May 11, 2020, this Court entered the Preliminary Injunction Order in the Lawsuit.
C. Plaintiffs have pending a Motion for Class Certification, which is fully briefed.
D. The Parties to the Lawsuit consent to this Consent Decree and Final Judgment as a settlement and compromise to resolve the Lawsuit.
III. TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. Class Certification.
The Parties shall jointly submit a motion for class certification for settlement purposes only, and for conditional approval of the class settlement. The motion for conditional approval shall specify the manner of providing notice to class members, which notice shall be agreed by all parties, and paid for by Defendant. Contemporaneously with the filing of such motion, Plaintiffs shall withdraw their pending motion for class certification, without prejudice. B. Full Release of Claims and Commitments from Plaintiffs
(1) Release of Claims. Except with respect to the relief provided in this Consent Decree and Final Judgment, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and for and on behalf of the Class as is anticipated to be reflected in the aforementioned joint motion for conditional approval of the class settlement, hereby release and forever discharge Defendant and all employees of Defendant and/or of the Weld County Sheriff’s Office
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96-1 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 17
from any and all claims or causes of action for injunctive and declaratory relief concerning or relating in any manner to COVID-19, which may have accrued up to and including the date of this Order (including all attorney fees, costs, and expenses which do or may relate thereto), and which would seek by means of declaratory or injunctive relief to address subject matters governed by this Order. Plaintiffs further understand that factual matters now unknown to them may have given or may hereinafter give rise to disputes that are currently unknown, unanticipated, and unsuspected. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and for and on behalf of the Class as is anticipated to be reflected in the aforementioned joint motion for conditional approval of the class settlement, acknowledge this Consent Decree is intended to and does release both known and unknown claims and causes of action for injunctive and declaratory relief, including those which would seek by means of declaratory or injunctive relief to address subject matters governed by this Order.
(2) Restriction on CORA Requests. Neither Plaintiffs, nor counsel when acting on behalf of Plaintiffs or members of the Class, nor employees or agents of Plaintiffs, shall request or cause to be requested from Defendant or any employee of the Weld County Sheriff’s Office under the Colorado Open Records Act or the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act the following: (a) any information or documents relating to Defendant’s response to COVID-19 at the WCJ; or (b) any information or data relating to average daily population or population statistics at the WCJ. C. Covenant Not to Sue
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and for and on behalf of the Class as is anticipated to be reflected in the aforementioned joint motion for conditional approval of the class settlement, agree not to sue Defendant or any employee of the Weld County
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96-1 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 17
Sheriff’s Office for injunctive or declaratory relief regarding or relating to COVID-19 for conduct that occurred prior to the date of this Consent Decree and Final Judgment. D. Agreement Respecting Taxes
Plaintiffs are responsible for any tax liability from any taxing authority with respect to the payment of Attorney Fees and Costs as specified below and Defendant shall have no tax liability with respect thereto. E. Obligations of Defendant
From the date of this Consent Decree and Final Judgment, until and including the date on which Executive Order D 2020 205 issued by Colorado Governor Jared Polis, Declaring a Disaster Emergency Due to the Presence of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Colorado, as subsequently amended or extended, expires and is not replaced by a similar Executive Order in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic (the “COVID-19 Emergency End Date”), Defendant shall:
(1) Identify all medically vulnerable inmates during the booking and intake process and inform any medically vulnerable inmates that they have been so designated. The scope of what makes an inmate medically vulnerable shall be updated to conform with current CDC guidance in the event the CDC modifies the aforesaid guidelines, which update shall be self-executing upon counsel for Defendant providing counsel for Plaintiffs and members of the Class either (a) an official order from the CDC which would be self-authenticating pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 902(1), or (b) an equivalent official publication from the CDC’s website which otherwise would be self-authenticating pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 902(5). All inmates must be asked if they have any of the conditions that would classify them as “medically vulnerable” as defined herein at intake. The descriptions for screening questions must, at a minimum, mirror the level of
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96-1 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 17
specificity in the definition of “medically vulnerable” set forth above, and must be given in Spanish for persons who indicate a preference for conditions to be listed in Spanish. The descriptions must also provide a list of the most common conditions that meet the definitions of “immunocompromised,” and “liver disease.” Self-reported conditions are to be accepted as true unless and until there is definitive medical evidence to the contrary. Until the process of determining whether inmates in intake have one or more of the aforesaid conditions which would cause them to be designated as medically vulnerable is completed, inmates should not be exposed to other inmates and should be exposed only to the smallest number of WCJ staff as possible.
(2) Take actions to keep the WCJ population as low as possible, while protecting public safety, so as to maximize the number of medically vulnerable inmates who can be housed in a single-cell, which shall consist of the following:
a. Maintain the “Emergency Arrest Standards Due To COVID-19/Jail Construction” included in ECF 85-2 filed with the Court in this Lawsuit until either the COVID-19 Emergency End Date or the date the WCJ housing unit closed for construction as indicated to the Court in ECF 85-2 is reopened, whichever is sooner.
b. Upon said housing unit being reopened, if sooner, subsequently maintain “Modification to Arrest Standards Due To COVID-19” attached hereto as Exhibit A-1, until the COVID-19 Emergency End Date.1
1 With respect to the offenses identified in Paragraph 4 under the heading “The Weld County Jail Will Accept” in Exhibit A-1, for anyone booked into the WCJ in the narrow additional categories specified in said Paragraph 4, Defendant will give notice to the Weld County Attorney, who will in turn notify counsel for the Class.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96-1 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 17
c. Retain the right no longer than the COVID-19 Emergency End Date, in Defendant’s sole discretion, to reinstitute the “Emergency Arrest Standards Due To COVID-19/Jail Construction” included in ECF 85-2 filed with the Court in this Lawsuit, or substantially similar arrest standards if appropriate based on WCJ inmate population, per capita when considering all housing units then open and the housing units’ then-current uses, increasing to a same or similar percentage level which motivated the filing of ECF 85-2 with the Court in this Lawsuit. If Defendant needs to reinstitute such Arrest Standards, Defendant by and through his counsel shall, contemporaneously with such reinstitution, notify Mark Silverstein at msilverstein@aclu-co.org and Nicole Loy at nloy@aclu-co.org.
d. Disseminate regular advisements to the Weld Chiefs of Police to be judicious about minimizing the scope of arrestees in their jurisdictions and maximizing the scope of persons who are issued a summons or given a bond upon personal recognizance in their jurisdictions.
e. At least one time every fourteen days: i. Provide a list of all inmates currently housed in the WCJ to the Chief Judge of the District Court for Colorado’s 19th Judicial District with a copy to Mark Silverstein at msilverstein@acluco.org and Nicole Loy at nloy@aclu-co.org, requesting a docket review for potential judicial action;
7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96-1 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 17
ii. Provide a list of all inmates subject to parole holds to the Colorado Division of Adult Parole, requesting a review for potential parole action; and
iii. Provide Mark Silverstein at msilverstein@aclu-co.org and nloy@aclu-co.org with an identification of which inmates in the WCJ are classified as “medically vulnerable” pursuant to this Consent Decree, for a lookback period of the prior fourteen days defined as the two-weeks-previous Monday at 05:00:00 AM through the previous Sunday at 05:00:01 AM, thus resulting in fourteen (14) days of reported data, at 05:00:00 AM each day of said lookback period. Mr. Silverstein, for himself and on behalf of all counsel who entered an appearance for Plaintiffs or the Class or both in the Lawsuit, agrees such identification shall be used only by counsel acting on behalf of Plaintiffs or members of the Class and shall be used only for class counsel purposes.
f. With respect to each WCJ inmate classified as “medically vulnerable” as set forth herein and who is currently in WCJ general population or in the intake/transition units, or who may subsequently booked into the WCJ through and including the COVID-19 Emergency End Date, promptly furnish to each such inmate a written notification that such inmate has been classified as “medically vulnerable” and is at a higher risk for experiencing adverse health consequences from contracting COVID-19, if contracted, based on the intake screening of such inmate. This form will contain such inmate’s name and date of birth,
8

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96-1 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 17
the date such inmate’s intake screening was conducted, and the initials and/or signature of the medical professional who conducted it. An exemplar of this form is attached hereto as Exhibit A-2. g. If necessary to maintain low jail population within the WCJ, utilize statutory authority contained in C.R.S. § 17-26-109 to grant time credits to sentenced prisoners. (3) Ensure the following respecting intake/transition units within the WCJ: medically vulnerable inmates admitted to WCJ’s intake/transition units are housed in a cell within such unit alone and away from other inmates; if it is not possible to house a medically vulnerable inmate alone in a cell within an intake/transition unit due to the WCJ’s physical layout, population level, and classification needs, the inmate must be housed in a cell within an intake/transition unit with no more than one other inmate, which inmate must also be a medically vulnerable inmate, in accordance with cohorting practices the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) specifically outlines and endorses; and if despite this allowance, it still is not possible to house a medically vulnerable inmate either alone or with only one other medically vulnerable inmate in a cell within an intake/transition unit due to the WCJ’s then-existing physical layout, population level, and classification needs, and no other option is apparent, Detentions Division Deputies will contact their Shift Sergeant for guidance immediately, and this existing policy will be maintained subject to the WCSO’s maximum staffing ability. (4) Ensure the following for all inmates: Continue the WCSO’s existing policy of ensuring, to the maximum extent possible considering the WCJ’s physical layout, population level, and classification needs, the following respecting general population units within the WCJ: medically vulnerable inmates are treated as a Special Management
9

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96-1 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 17
population in the WCJ; upon completing the intake/ transition unit quarantine protocol and transferring to WCJ general population, a medically vulnerable inmate is not housed in a cell with an inmate who is not medically vulnerable and an inmate who is not medically vulnerable is not housed in a cell with a medically vulnerable inmate; and medically vulnerable inmates remain in current cohorted “family units” to the extent they are cohorted only with one other medically vulnerable inmate in their cell.
(5) Allow the maximum amount of daily out-of-cell time WCJ can provide inmates while following cohorting and social distancing protocols.
(6) Require WCJ Detentions Division staff to ensure enhanced sanitation in the WCJ housing units; prior to medically vulnerable inmates entering any WCJ common area, which includes bathrooms, an EPA-approved disinfectant spray which combats COVID-19 as certified by the EPA will be sprayed on all surfaces open for use by such inmates, allowing for recommended contact time for complete disinfection to occur before such inmates enter; medically vulnerable inmates will be encouraged to practice social distancing continuously (to supplement the existing placement of thick black gaffers tape throughout the WCJ for visual representation of six feet apart from person to person), to disinfect any commonly used equipment on their way out and their way in, and to increase their own cleaning practices to include frequent hand washing and personal sanitation; medically vulnerable inmates who willfully refuse to adhere to recommended practices to prevent the spread of COVID-19 despite such encouragements will be noted in the WCJ records management system; personal hygiene supplies and bottles of an EPA-approved disinfectant spray will remain available to all inmates, inclusive of medically vulnerable inmates, without cost; in the event the WCJ inmate population reaches a low enough threshold that “medically
10

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96-1 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 17
vulnerable” inmates can be further distanced from non-“medically vulnerable” inmates, then they shall be, while recognizing that limiting movement from one housing unit to another to ensure prevention of cross-contamination from one population to another population is consistent with public health guidance in a correctional setting; WCJ will maintain increased supplies of bottles of an EPA-approved disinfectant spray and masks to ensure all inmates have access to both masks and such disinfecting spray at all times; when necessary and only in a medically-sound manner that does not aerosolize droplets that may contain COVID-19 or otherwise lead to increased spread of COVID-19, power washers may be used on water-resistant surfaces, when applicable, to enhance cleaning; when necessary, only Trustee inmates who are both properly trained in biohazard cleanup and outfitted with proper personal protective equipment will be utilized to clean up areas previously occupied by an inmate confirmed to have tested positive for COVID-19. WCJ shall provide increased professional cleaning services to augment the enhanced sanitation efforts of Detentions Division staff if warranted by the situation.
(7) Ensure that all inmates shall have access to at least two cloth masks or at least one disposable mask at all times. WCJ shall monitor mask usage by all inmates; all WCJ staff (and third-party contractors) shall be required to wear a face mask at all times when interacting in any manner with inmates, and WCJ shall monitor mask usage by such staff; WCJ shall provide reusable cloth masks to inmates who are not medically vulnerable and ensure such inmates are provided the opportunity to wash said cloth masks every three days; WCJ shall provide disposable masks to medically vulnerable inmates and such masks will be replaced in accordance with CDC guidelines and
11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96-1 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 17
manufacturer recommendations, or sooner if said masks become soiled or damaged. WCJ will continue to provide a mask to all inmates who are released from the WCJ.
(8) Ensure medical monitoring for medically vulnerable inmates housed within the WCJ: qualified medical staff will perform four “daily checks” on medically vulnerable inmates consisting of temperature checks and full symptom screenings.
(9) Ensure that symptom screening shall be dictated, at minimum, by thencurrent CDC guidelines and will be according to the attached second updated screening protocol (attached as Exhibit A-3 to this Consent Decree).
(10) Provide testing for all inmates according to then-current CDC guidelines as soon as possible following the report of one or more symptoms for COVID-19 consistent with CDC screening questions, without imposing additional requirements beyond the CDC screening questions, although Defendant may make testing more frequently available. Testing shall be performed as soon as possible from the time of the report. When an inmate tests positive for COVID-19 or is designated by a health care professional as presumptive positive for COVID-19, the WCJ will follow current CDC criteria for testing, quarantine, and isolation. These criteria have changed since CDC guidelines for correctional facilities were originally issued and may continue to change as new data points are made available to and accounted for by the CDC.
(11) Continue implementation of the following protocol in both intake/transition units and general population units: an inmate in the WCJ who is symptomatic for or tests positive for COVID-19 is isolated in a medical isolation unit in the WCJ per current CDC criteria. These criteria have changed since CDC guidelines for correctional facilities were originally issued and may continue to change as new data points are made available to and accounted for by the CDC.
12

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96-1 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 17
(12) Ensure that medical isolation is a non-punitive environment and inmates shall have access to personal items, such recreational materials which can be effectively sanitized, and time outside of their cell while in medical isolation;
(13) Continue to allow remote visitation for inmates with any visitor, including personal, jail-based behavioral, legal, or others; however, nothing in this agreement prohibits or discourages allowing for in-person visitation in compliance with CDC guidelines. Video visitation from the WCJ’s front lobby shall remain a free service.
(14) Provide informational updates to inmates housed within the WCJ, both via paper as appropriate and via video message, as to best practices on how to prevent the spread of COVID-19, which shall include, as part of the intake process, an initial viewing of a previously prepared video addressing best practices for preventing the spread of COVID-19;
(15) Furnish to the ACLU of Colorado, via email to Mark Silverstein at msilverstein@aclu-co.org and Nicole Loy at nloy@aclu-co.org, on or before 11:59:59 PM Mountain Time on Tuesday of every week, the following WCJ data for the lookback period which is defined as the previous Monday at 05:00:00 AM through Sunday at 05:00:01 AM, thus resulting in seven (7) days of reported data, at 05:00:00 AM each day of said lookback period:
a. Average daily inmate population as logged at 05:00:00 AM each day of the lookback period;
b. Average daily population of medically vulnerable inmates as logged at 05:00:00 AM each day of the lookback period;
c. Total number of medically vulnerable inmates identified during the intake screening process each day of the lookback period.
13

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96-1 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 17
d. Daily count of inmates housed in medical isolation units within the WCJ for each day of the lookback period;
e. Total number of COVID-19 tests administered to inmates each day during the lookback period and results of those tests (positive, negative, inconclusive); and
f. Total number of inmates transferred to a hospital for care each day during the lookback period due to COVID-19. The procedures set forth above may be modified as necessary by further Order from the Court. In addition, as set forth in Section III.E.2 above, Defendant by and through his counsel shall furnish Mr. Silverstein with an identification of which inmates in the WCJ are classified as “medically vulnerable” pursuant to this Consent Decree, for a lookback period of the prior fourteen days defined as the two-weeks-previous Monday at 05:00:00 AM through the previous Sunday at 05:00:01 AM, thus resulting in fourteen (14) days of reported data, at 05:00:00 AM each day of said lookback period. Defendant shall furnish Mr. Silverstein with such identification every fourteen days, that is, with every other transmission of the data set forth in this paragraph which Defendant is furnishing to Mr. Silverstein on a weekly basis. Mr. Silverstein, for himself and on behalf of all counsel who entered an appearance for Plaintiffs or the Class or both in the Lawsuit, agrees such identification shall be used only by counsel acting on behalf of Plaintiffs or members of the Class and shall be used only for class counsel purposes. F. Payment of Certain Attorney Fees and Costs Attributable to Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class from Defendant By and Through the Weld County Board of County Commissioners Within twenty-one (21) days from the date the Court enters this Order in its final form, Defendant shall cause to be paid $122,387.60 as reimbursement for Attorney
14

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96-1 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 17
Fees and Costs. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and for and on behalf of the Class as is anticipated to be reflected in the aforementioned joint motion for conditional approval of the class settlement, agree that such payment is the full and final amount they are entitled to receive for Attorney Fees and Costs in this action for work performed through the date of this Consent Decree and Final Judgment, and unless Defendant is held in contempt of court for not abiding by the terms of this Consent Decree and Final Judgment, Plaintiffs and the Class will not seek any further Attorney Fees and Costs with respect to the Lawsuit. The Attorney Fees and Costs shall be paid by check made payable to the “ACLU of Colorado Foundation” and delivered to Mark Silverstein, Esq. No withholding for any federal, state, or local taxes will be made from the Attorney Fees and Costs, and an IRS Form 1099 will be issued to the ACLU of Colorado Foundation. G. Final Compromise, No Admissions
All Parties agree and acknowledge: this Consent Decree and Final Judgment constitutes a full and complete compromise of this Lawsuit; and no past or present wrongdoing on the part of anyone will be implied by such commitment or by the negotiations surrounding this Consent Decree and Final Judgment. The terms and conditions of this Consent Decree and Final Judgment do not constitute and will not be asserted to constitute any admission respecting any facts or liability for claims whatsoever with regard to any aspects of this Lawsuit. H. Binding Effect
This Consent Decree will inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, all successors, assigns, personal representatives, and heirs (as applicable) of Plaintiffs, of the Class as is anticipated to be reflected in the aforementioned joint motion for conditional approval of the class settlement, and of Defendant.
15

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96-1 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 17

I. Headings and Recitals The headings used in this Consent Decree and Final Judgment are for the
convenience of the Parties only. As such, these headings will not have any legal effect whatsoever, or in any other way modify the meaning or interpretation of this Consent Decree and Final Judgment. J. Modification of this Consent Decree and Final Judgment
No provision of this Consent Decree and Final Judgment may be modified except by Order of this Court. K. Need-Narrowness-Intrusiveness Findings
The Court finds and concludes this Consent Decree and Final Judgment: has no adverse effect on public safety; does not have more than a minimal adverse effect on the operation of the criminal justice system; is narrowly drawn; extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of a Federal right; and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1).

Dated and agreed to this 30th day of November, 2020:

s/ Daniel David Williams Daniel David Williams Lauren Elizabeth Groth HUTCHINSON BLACK & COOK, LLC williams@hbcboulder.com groth@hbcboulder.com
s/ Mark Silverstein Mark Silverstein Rebecca Teitelbaum Wallace Sara R. Neel AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNIONDENVER msilverstein@aclu-co.org rtwallace@aclu-co.org

s/ Matthew J. Hegarty Matthew J. Hegarty, Esq. Andrew D. Ringel, Esq. John F. Peters, Esq. of HALL & EVANS, LLC 1001 17th Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 T: (303) 628-3300 F: (303) 628-3368 hegartym@hallevans.com ringela@hallevans.com petersj@hallevans.com Attorneys for Defendant Steven Reams

Sheriff

16

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96-1 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 17

sneel@aclu-co.org

Darold W. Killmer David A. Lane Andrew Joseph McNulty Michael Paul Fairhurst KILLMER LANE & NEWMAN LLP dkillmer@kln-law.com dlane@kln-law.com amcnulty@kln-law.com mfairhurst@kln-law.com

David George Maxted MAXTED LAW LLC dave@maxtedlaw.com

Jamie Hughes Hubbard STIMSON STANCIL LABRANCHE HUBBARD LLC hubbard@sslhlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Thomas Carranza, Jesus Martinez, Richard Barnum, Thomas Lewis, Michael Lewis, Colby Propes, and Chad Hunter

ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS

ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

SO ORDERED THIS ____ DAY OF ____________, 20__: BY THE COURT:

_____________ Date

_______________________________ Chief United States District Judge

17

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96-2 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Modification to Arrest Standards due to COVID 19
The Weld County Jail Will Accept: 1. Charges of a felony 6 and higher 2. New felony charges which are enhanced with VRA/Domestic Violence 3. New misdemeanor charges which are enhanced with VRA/Domestic Violence 4. New misdemeanor charge alleging an arrestee committed either or both of the following: ----(a) a crime of violence involving the intentional discharge of a firearm in a manner or situation that it posed a risk of injury to another; or ----(b) a first-degree misdemeanor identical to or substantially similar to at least two other first-degree misdemeanors the same arrestee allegedly committed in the 90 days before the date of the new charge, such that the new charge constitutes at least the arrestee’s third such identical or substantially similar first-degree misdemeanor in that period; but only if the Weld County Sheriff first personally determines that the arrestee poses a substantial risk of danger to the community if not booked into the jail facility. 5. Warrants for the charges listed above 6. Protection order violations 7. Probation and Parole Warrants
The Weld County Jail WILL NOT Accept: 1. Municipal warrants or arrests 2. Civil commitments 3. Petty offenses 4. Detox refusals 5. Any arrests that do not meet the above standards
Warrants in the lobby: If someone comes to the lobby to turn themselves in on agency warrant, the following guidelines will apply: 1. If the warrant is not for the crimes listed under the above standards, the person will be told to
turn themselves in at the agency that issued the warrant. 2. If the warrant is listed under the above standards, they will be processed into the jail facility.
EXHIBIT A-1

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96-3 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF BEING “MEDICALLY VULNERABLE” WITH RESPECT TO COVID-19
Dear _____________________________:
Based on the information you provided during your intake screening, you have been determined at this time to be classified as “medically vulnerable” and to be at a higher risk for experiencing adverse health consequences from contracting COVID-19, if contracted.
This determination may be subject to change if your medical records reveal information materially different from what you provided during your intake screening. If your medical records reveal information materially different from what you provided during your intake screening, you will be issued a supplemental notice indicating you are not in fact at higher risk for experiencing adverse health consequences from contracting COVID-19, if contracted, based on a review of your medical records and a comparison of those records with the information you provided during your intake screening.

___________________________ ___________________________ INMATE NAME & NUMBER INTAKE SCREENING DATE

___________________________ ___________________________

INMATE DATE OF BIRTH

MEDICAL STAFF SIGNATURE

EXHIBIT A-2

CCaassee 11::2200--ccvv--0000997777--PPAABB--SSKKCC DDooccuummeenntt 6906--24 FFiilleedd 0151//1380//2200 UUSSDDCC CCoolloorraaddoo PPaaggee 11 ooff 23
_E__X__H_I_B__I_T__F__-_1_
EXHIBIT A-3

CCaassee 11::2200--ccvv--0000997777--PPAABB--SSKKCC DDooccuummeenntt 6906--24 FFiilleedd 0151//1380//2200 UUSSDDCC CCoolloorraaddoo PPaaggee 22 ooff 23
_E__X__H_I_B__I_T__F__-_1_

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96-4 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
NAME:________________________ DOB_______________JID#_____________________
MEDICAL VULNERABILY SCREENING FORM
PER CDC GUIDELINES 65 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE COPD HEART CONDITIONS (HEART FAILURE, CAD, CARDIOMYOPATHIES IMMUNOCOMPROMISED STATE OBESITY BMI >30 PREGANCY SICK CELL DISEASE TYPE 2 DIABETES LIVER DISEASE ASTHMA MODERATE TO SEVERE* CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASE* CYSTIC FIBROSIS * HYPERTENSION * NEUROLOGIC CONDITIONS (DEMENTIA)* PULMONARY FIBROSIS * THALASSEMIA (A TYPE OF BLOOD DISORDER)* TYPE 1 DIABETES* CANCER* SMOKING*
**THIS FORM IS FOR DATA COLLECTION PURPOSES ONLY. IT WILL NOT BE A PERMANENT PART OF THE MEDICAL RECORD**

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96-5 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLORADO
NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT CONCERNING PROTECTION OF MEDICALLY VULNERABLE PERSONS IN THE
WELD COUNTY JAIL FROM COVID-19
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
This Notice is to inform you of a proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit to protect medically vulnerable persons held in the Weld County Jail (“WCJ”) from COVID-19. The federal District Court for Colorado held a preliminary injunction hearing in this matter on April 30, 2020. By Order dated May 11, 2020, the court entered a detailed preliminary injunction setting forth steps WCJ was required to take to identify and to protect medically vulnerable inmates at the Weld County Jail. The preliminary injunction has been extended multiple times, most recently through December 9, 2020.
Counsel for the proposed class and counsel for the Weld County Sheriff have spent several months attempting to reach an agreement to resolve this lawsuit. They have reached a proposed settlement agreement in the form of a proposed Consent Decree and Final Judgment, which is described below. The Court must decide whether to approve the Consent Decree. Before doing so, you have the opportunity to submit any objection to the Court. Please be advised that if you fail to strictly comply with the procedures and deadline for filing objections to the proposed settlement, you will lose any opportunity to object to any aspect of the proposed Consent Decree.
PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE
To resolve this dispute, the parties have agreed to request that the Court enter the attached proposed Consent Decree as an Order of the Federal District Court. A summary of the key terms of the proposed Consent Decree is as follows:
1) For purposes of the proposed Consent Decree, the designation of who is “medically vulnerable” is defined in line with U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) guidance current as of the date the proposed Consent Decree and Final Judgment was submitted to the Court, yet subject to modification if the CDC’s guidance changes;
2) WCJ will identify medically vulnerable inmates during booking and intake, including screening for specific medical conditions set forth in the proposed Consent Decree, in English or Spanish at each Class member’s election. Persons identified as medically vulnerable will be protected from exposure to others during the remainder of the intake process to the extent possible;
3) WCJ will attempt to single-cell medically vulnerable inmates in the intake/transition units consistent with CDC guidelines, and the Consent Decree contains specific procedures to minimize exposure to others if single cells are not available based on the population size of WCJ;

1

EXHIBIT B

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96-5 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
4) WCJ will continue to limit exposure of medically vulnerable persons in the general jail population, including with respect to cell assignments and with respect to time spent outside of cells;
5) WCJ will permit the maximum amount of daily out-of-cell time for inmates consistent with social distancing protocols and allowable cohorting;
6) WCJ will medically isolate COVID-19-positive inmates in an isolation unit consistent with CDC guidelines and ensure that medical isolation for COVID-19 inmates is in a nonpunitive environment, allowing access to personal and recreational items which can be effectively sanitized;
7) WCJ will continue stringent enhanced sanitation procedures throughout the jail to help control the spread of COVID-19;
8) WCJ will distribute masks, with the option to provide two cloth masks per inmate for nonmedically vulnerable persons, and disposable masks for medically vulnerable persons, with the disposable masks to be replaced at the frequency consistent with CDC guidelines and manufacturer recommendations;
9) To help limit the spread of COVID-19 in the community outside of the jail, inmates will be given masks to take with them upon release from the WCJ;
10) Medically vulnerable inmates will be regularly monitored by healthcare professionals for COVID-19 symptoms;
11) WCJ will provide testing for inmates for COVID-19 consistent with CDC guidelines;
12) Remote visitation opportunities will be continued;
13) Inmates will receive regular information and updates regarding COVID-19 prevention;
14) Persons identified as “medically vulnerable” at intake will be provided with a document stating that they have been so designated;
15) Defendant will maintain modified arrest standards, varying somewhat depending on the status of an ongoing jail construction project, that will remain in place for the duration of the COVID-19 emergency. These modified arrest standards, which are listed as an attachment to the proposed Consent Decree, restrict who WCJ will accept, by category of offense;
16) On a regular basis, Defendant will advise chiefs of police in Weld County to be judicious with jail space and to minimize the scope of arrestees in their jurisdictions and maximize the number of persons subject to arrest who are issued summonses or personal recognizance bonds in their jurisdictions;
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96-5 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
17) Every two weeks, WCJ will provide the Chief Judge for the Nineteenth Judicial District of Colorado and the Colorado Division of Adult Parole a list of all inmates housed at WCJ, with a request to the Chief Judge for a docket review for potential judicial action;
18) Defendant will comply with robust data reporting requirements to Plaintiffs’ counsel, so as to allow class counsel to monitor the performance of WCJ under the Consent Decree. Plaintiffs, and Class counsel when acting on behalf of class members, agree not to circumvent these agreed data reporting requirements by making additional requests under the Colorado Open Records Act or Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act relating to WCJ’s COVID-19 response or population statistics;
19) Plaintiffs and the Class will release claims for injunctive and declaratory relief arising from COVID-19 at the WCJ, and associated costs and attorney’s fees, accruing through the date of the Consent Decree. The release does not include claims concerning conduct that occurs after the date the Consent Decree is entered, and it does not include any money damages claims;
20) The duration of the Consent Decree is through the time that the Executive Order of the Governor of the State of Colorado declaring a statewide emergency for COVID-19 expires and is not renewed or replaced with an equivalent declaration;
21) Defendant will pay counsel for Plaintiffs $122,387.60 for attorney’s fees and costs; and
22) The parties agree that the Consent Decree is entered into for purposes of settlement, and should not be construed as an admission of wrongdoing.
REASONS FOR PROPOSING COURT APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT DECREE
All parties believe this proposed Consent Decree is fair and reasonable. It is the result of a lengthy negotiation between the two sides. Particularly in light of the risks of prevailing if the case had gone to trial, and the considerable discretion the Court would have had to decide what to include in any permanent injunction, Plaintiffs’ counsel believes the relief described above exceeds what they likely could have secured on behalf of the class had the case going to trial.
PROCEDURE AND DEADLINES TO OBJECT TO THE CONSENT DECREE
The Court has set a hearing to consider whether to approve the proposed Consent Decree. That hearing is set to occur on December ____, 2020 at ____ at the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
If you agree with the proposed Consent Decree, or do not wish to object to it, you are not required to take any action at all.
If you wish to object to the Consent Decree, you must do so in writing, with any written objections submitted no later than ________________.
Your written objections should be addressed as follows:
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 96-5 Filed 11/30/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
Clerk of the Court RE: Thomas Carranza, et al. v. Steven Reams, No: 20-cv-977-PAB-SKC U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado Alfred A. Arraj Courthouse 901 19th Street Denver, CO 80294
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Should you have questions or seek additional information regarding this matter, you are directed to contact counsel for Plaintiffs as follows: ACLU of Colorado
Re: Carranza Class Action 303 17th Ave., Suite 350 Denver, CO 80203
4

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 100 Filed 12/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 24
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Case No. 20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC
JESUS MARTINEZ, and CHAD HUNTER,
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement [Docket No. 96]. On April 7, 2020, plaintif fs brought this case as a class action alleging that defendant Sheriff Steven Reams acted with deliberate indifference to the health of medically vulnerable persons in custody at the Weld County Jail (“WCJ”) by failing to take necessary measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Docket Nos. 1, 7 at 25-27. I. BACKGROUND
On April 7, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and expedited hearing. Docket No. 1. Plaintiffs later withdrew the portion of their motion seeking a temporary restraining order. Docket No. 29. On April 30, 2020, the Court conducted a hearing on plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion. Docket No. 52. On May 11, 2020, the Court issued a preliminary injunction

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 100 Filed 12/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 24
that identified actions defendant had to take to identify and protect medically vulnerable inmates at WCJ. See generally Docket No. 55. This preliminary injunction has been extended several times and is currently set to expire February 5, 2021. Docket No. 99.
The parties have engaged in negotiations in order to reach a settlement, and on November 30, 2020, they filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Certification of a Class and Appointment of Class Counsel, and Permission to Post Class Notice. Docket No. 96. II. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
Approval of a class action settlement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 takes place in two stages. In the first stage, the Court preliminarily certifies a settlement class, preliminarily approves the settlement agreement, and authorizes that notice be given to the class so that interested class members may object to the fairness of the settlement. In the second stage, after notice is given to the putative class, the Court holds a fairness hearing at which it will address (1) any timely objections to the treatment of this litigation as a class action, and (2) any objections to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the settlement terms. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2); see, e.g., McReynolds v. Richards-Cantave, 588 F.3d 790, 803 (2d Cir. 2009).
“Preliminary approval of a class action settlement, in contrast to final approval, is at most a determination that there is . . . ‘probable cause’ to subm it the proposal to class members and hold a full-scale hearing as to its fairness.” In re Crocs, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 07-cv-02351-PAB-KLM, 2013 WL 4547404, at *3 (D. Colo. Aug. 28, 2013) (quoting Davis v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 775 F. Supp. 2d 601, 607 (W .D.N.Y.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 100 Filed 12/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 24
2011)). If the parties meet the requirements for preliminary approval, the Court will direct notice to all class members who would be bound by the proposal and hold a fairness hearing to determine if
it is fair, reasonable, and adequate after considering whether: (A) the class representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the class; (B) the proposal was negotiated at arm’s length; (C) the relief provided is for the class is adequate, taking into account (i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal; (ii) the effectiveness of any proposed method of distributing relief to the class, including the method of processing class-member claims; (iii) the terms of any proposed award of attorney’s fees, including timing of payment; and (iv) any agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3); and (D) the proposal treats class members equitably relative to each other. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). Though the standards for preliminary approval are not as stringent as those for final approval, the final approval standards inform the Court’s preliminary inquiry and thus it is appropriate to review them. A court’s review for final approval is to “focus[] on whether ‘(1) the settlement was fairly and honestly negotiated, (2) serious legal and factual questions placed the litigation's outcome in doubt, (3) the immediate recovery was more valuable than the mere possibility of a more favorable outcome after further litigation, and (4) [the parties] believed the settlement was fair and reasonable.’” Elna Sefcovic, LLC v. TEP Rocky Mountain, LLC, 807 F. App’x 752, 757 (10th Cir. 2020) (unpublished) (quoting Tennille v. W. Union Co., 785 F.3d 422, 434 (10th Cir. 2015)). District courts have broad discretion in granting or denying class certification. Shook v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of the Cnty. of El Paso (“Shook II’), 543 F.3d 597, 603 (10th Cir. 2008). “[C]ertification is proper only if ‘the trial court is satisfied, after a rigorous analysis, that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied.’” Wal-Mart
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 100 Filed 12/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 24
Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350-51 (2011) (quoting Gen. Tel. Co of the Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982)).
A district court may certify a class action if the proposed class satisfies the prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) as well as the requirements of one of the three types of classes identified in Rule 23(b). In the typical case where the plaintiff applies for class certification, plaintiff bears the burden of proving that Rule 23's requirements are satisfied. DG ex rel. Stricklin v. Devaughn, 594 F.3d 1188, 1194 (10th Cir. 2010) (citing Shook v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of the Cnty. of El Paso (“Shook I”), 386 F.3d 963, 968 (10th Cir. 2004)). Here, the parties jointly move for certification for the purposes of settlement only. Docket No. 96 at 10 n.2 (defendant reserves the right to contest class certification if settlement is not approved). Rule 23(a) requires that (1) the class be so numerous that joinder is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims of the representative party are typical of those of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). A class action may be sustained if these requirements are satisfied, and the class meets the requirements of one of the categories of Rule 23(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b).
The parties seek to certify the class under Rule 23(b)(2), Docket No. 96 at 10, which states that a class action may be maintained if “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Rule 23(b)(2) certification imposes two independent but related requirements: defendant’s actions or inaction must be based on ground
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 100 Filed 12/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 24
generally applicable to all class members, and the injunctive relief must be appropriate
for the class as a whole. Shook II, 543 F.3d at 604.
III. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
A. Overview of Proposed Settlement Agreement
The parties seek certification of a settlement class consisting of
All past, present, and future inmates housed within the Weld County Jail from April 7, 2020 through the “COVID-19 Emergency End Date” who are “medically vulnerable.”
An inmate is “medically vulnerable” if, pursuant to CDC guidelines for correctional facilities like the WCJ which exist as of the date this proposed Consent Decree and Final Judgment was submitted to the Court, the inmate has one or more of the following conditions: is 65 years and older; has chronic lung disease including COPD; has moderate to severe asthma; has serious heart conditions such as heart f ailure, coronary artery disease or cardiomyopathies; has sickle cell disease; is immunocompromised; has severe obesity (e.g. BMI of 30 or higher); has diabetes; has chronic kidney disease and is undergoing dialysis; has liver disease; has cancer; is pregnant; or is a former or current cigarette smoker.
The “COVID-19 Emergency End Date” is the date on which Executive Order D 2020 205 issued by Colorado Governor Jared Polis, Declaring a Disaster Emergency Due to the Presence of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Colorado, as subsequently amended or extended, expires and is not replaced by a similar Executive Order in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
Docket No. 96 at 9. There are no subclasses to the settlement agreement. Key terms
of the proposed settlement include that: (1) WCJ will identify medically vulnerable
inmates during booking, protect them during the remainder of the intake process to the
extent possible, and provide them with a document stating their status; (2) WCJ will
attempt to single-cell medically vulnerable inmates in the intake/transition units and will
continue to limit their exposure in the general jail population; (3) WCJ will medically
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 100 Filed 12/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 24
isolate COVID-19 positive inmates in a non-punitive environment; (4) WCJ will continue enhanced sanitation and will distribute masks to inmates; (5) healthcare processionals will monitor medically vulnerable inmates for COVID-19 symptoms and will provide testing to inmates consistent with CDC guidelines; (6) defendant will maintain modified arrest standards to reduce jail population and will advise Weld County police chiefs to be judicious with jail space on a regular basis; (7) every two weeks, WCJ will provide the Chief Judge for the Nineteenth Judicial District of Colorado and the Colorado Division of Adult Parole a list of all inmates housed at WCJ, with a request to the Chief Judge for a docket review for potential judicial action; (8) defendant will comply with data reporting requirements and plaintiffs’ counsel will not make additional requests; (9) plaintiffs and the class will release claims for injunctive and declaratory relief arising from COVID-19 at the WCJ, but that does not include claims concerning conduct that occurs after the date the Consent Decree is entered, and it does not include any money damages claims; (10) defendant will pay counsel for plaintiffs $122,387.60 in attorney’s fees and costs; and (11) there is no admission of wrongdoing by defendant. Docket No. 96 at 5-8.
The parties propose to post notice of the proposed settlement in “portions of the WCJ that house medically vulnerable inmates where it is visible to them.” Id. at 16. The parties have attached their proposed class notice as Exhibit B to their motion. Docket No. 96-5. The notice advises class members who wish to object to the settlement to mail an objection to the Court. Id. at 3-4. The parties do not indicate how this method of posting notice would supply notice to “past” or “future” inmates or to a medically vulnerable inmate who may not have been placed in the proper area.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 100 Filed 12/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 24
B. Numerosity Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the class membership be sufficiently large to warrant a class action because the alternative of joinder is impracticable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). Some courts have held that numerosity may be presumed at a certain number; however, the Tenth Circuit has never adopted a minimum presumption. Trevizo v. Adams, 455 F.3d 1155, 162 (10th Cir. 2006) (upholding district court ruling that a group of eighty-four class members was insufficient to warrant class certification). The parties estimate that 69% of WCJ’s current population of 500 inmates is medically vulnerable under CDC guidance, which puts the proposed current members of the class at 345 persons. See Docket No. 96 at 11. Additionally, the proposed class includes past inmates and unknown future detainees who are medically vulnerable. Id. The parties do not provide an estimate of past inmates who are part of the proposed class. See id. at 10-11. The inclusion of past and future inmates raises issues. The parties define the class as “[a]ll past, present, and future inmates housed within the Weld County Jail from April 7, 2020 through the ‘COVID-19 Emergency End Date’ who are ‘medically vulnerable.’” Id. at 9. The parties do not define what they mean by “past” inmates. If “past” inmates means inmates who have been released, the parties have not indicated how past inmates will benefit from the requested injunctive relief or how they will receive notice. Even if the “past” inmates received notice, the parties do not explain what objections they might have or the risk of confusion they might experience. Similarly, as to “future” inmates, the parties do not define the term or indicate how the
7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 100 Filed 12/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 24
proposed notice posting would provide notice to future inmates. Moreover, even if “future” inmates are included simply in anticipation of turnover among the jail population, it is unclear to the Court why the class definition requires the inclusion of future inmates when the proposed relief extends for a defined period of time and covers all medically vulnerable inmates during that time.
Because the parties have not supplied information about the number of “past” or “future” inmates, the Court considers whether the numerosity requirement is met by the number of current inmates who are medically vulnerable. “[W]hen injunctive relief is the only relief requested, even speculative or conclusory representations regarding numerosity will suffice to permit class certification.” Goodnight v. Shalala, 837 F. Supp. 1564, 1582 (D. Utah 1993) (citing Horn v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 555 F.2d 270, 275-76 (10th Cir. 1977)). The Court agrees that joinder of approximately 345 current inmates would be impracticable and the Court finds that the numerosity requirement is met.
C. Commonality Rule 23(a) requires a district court to ensure that “there are questions of law or fact common to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). Factual differences in the claims of the individual class members should not result in the denial of class certification where common questions of law exist. Commonality requires that the plaintiff demonstrate that the class members have “suffered the same injury” such that the claims of the class are based on a common contention and that the determination of the truth or falsity of this contention “will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of
8

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 100 Filed 12/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 24
each one of the claims in one stroke.” Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 350. Even a single common question will satisfy commonality. Id. at 359.
The parties argue that commonality is met here because the questions of whether WCJ’s conduct has exposed the class to harm or to a substantial risk of harm due to deliberate indifference are common the class. Docket No. 96 at 12. Additionally, the proposed consent decree represents a com mon answer. Id.
“What matters to class certification . . . is not the raising of common ‘questions' – even in droves – but rather, the capacity of a class-wide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.” Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 350 (citation omitted). The Court agrees that the proposed class meets this standard. Plaintiffs allege that defendant exhibited deliberate indifference to the risk of COVID-19 on medically vulnerable inmates. In Shook v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of the Cnty. of El Paso, the district court denied certification for mentally ill inmates at the El Paso County Jail because “[e]valuation of the claims asserted on behalf of the class would require examination of the unique circumstances surrounding each incident alleged to constitute a constitutional deprivation.” No. 02-cv-00651-RPM, 2006 WL 1801379, at *9 (D. Colo. June 28, 2006), aff’d, Shook II, 543 F.3d at 600. By contrast, the relief in this case will not require an examination of unique circumstances – once an inmate is categorized as medically vulnerable, the proposed relief would apply to that person. Accordingly, the Court finds that the proposed settlement class satisfies the commonality requirement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2).
9

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 100 Filed 12/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 24
D. Typicality Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the “claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). The typicality requirement ensures that the absent class members are adequately represented by the lead plaintiff such that the interests of the class will be fairly and adequately protected in their absence. Falcon, 457 U.S. at 157 n.13. Typicality “is satisfied when each class member’s claim arises from the same course of events, and each class member makes similar legal arguments to prove the defendant’s liability.” Marisol A. v. Giuliani, 126 F.3d 372, 376 (2d Cir. 1997). “[I]t is well-established that a proposed class representative is not typical under Rule 23(a)(3) if the representative is subject to a unique defense that is likely to become a major focus of the litigation.” Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 687 F.3d 583, 599 (3d Cir. 2012) (internal quotations omitted). The parties argue that typicality is met here for the same reason as commonality and because plaintiffs are medically vulnerable and face the same potential harms of the proposed class.1 Docket No. 96 at 13. The named plaintiffs,
1 Plaintiffs brought their Eighth Amendment claim on behalf of “persons in carceral custody,” while their Fourteenth Amendment claim was brought on behalf of pretrial detainees. See Docket No. 7 at 25-27. While the Eighth Amendment claim has both an objective component, “whether the alleged wrongdoing was objectively harmful enough,” and a subjective component, “whether the officials acted with a sufficiently culpable mind,” the Fourteenth Amendment claim requires only a showing of the objective component. Brown v. Flowers, 974 F.3d 1178, 1182 (10th Cir. 2020) (internal quotations omitted) (recognizing that Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015) abrogated prior Tenth Circuit caselaw that treated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment analyses as identical). In its order on plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, the Court found that plaintiffs satisfied their burden under the Eighth Amendment standard. Docket No. 55 at 18 n.9. T herefore, the Court finds that these
10

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 100 Filed 12/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 24
Jesus Martinez and Chad Hunter,2 fall within high-risk populations who are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 and are currently being held at WCJ. Docket No. 96 at 9. Mr. Martinez is 33 years old and suffers from diabetes, asthma, high blood pressure, and is currently overweight. Docket No. 7 at 8. Mr. Hunter is 46 years old, is hypoglycemic, has a history as a smoker, and has a history of substance abuse disorder. Id. at 10. Both of these plaintiffs meet the proposed definition of “medically vulnerable” inmates. See Docket No. 96 at 9 (including persons who have diabetes and are former cigarette smokers in the definition of medically vulnerable). Typicality “limit[s] the class claims to those fairly encompassed by the named plaintiff’s claims,” Gen. Tel. Co. of the N.W., Inc. v. E.E.O.C., 446 U.S. 318, 330 (1980), which allows self-interested litigation by the named plaintiffs to necessarily advance the interests of the class as a whole. 1 William B. Rubenstein, Newberg on Class Actions (“Newberg”), § 3:29. The named plaintiffs face similar risks as other medically vulnerable inmates due to the contagious nature of COVID-19. The named plaintiffs are not subject to any “unique defense[s],” see Marcus, 687 F.3d at 599, and the pursuit of the requested relief for themselves will advance the interests of the class as
two separate legal theories do not defeat typicality. 2 Defendant’s response to plaintiffs’ motion for class certification states that Mr.
Hunter was released on April 15, 2020. Docket No. 64 at 2. How ever, the parties’ joint motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement, filed on November 30, 2020, states that Mr. Hunter is currently being held at WCJ. Docket No. 96 at 9. While Mr. Martinez is a pretrial detainee, Docket No. 64 at 2, the parties do not indicate if Mr. Hunter is currently a pretrial detainee or is serving a sentence. See Docket No. 96 at 9. However, because the proposed class definition makes no distinction between medically vulnerable inmates in pretrial versus carceral custody, Docket No. 96-1 at 1-2, this distinction is not material to class certification.
11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 100 Filed 12/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 24
a whole. See Newberg, § 3:29. Therefore, the Court agrees that the named plaintiffs bring claims that are typical of the proposed class – namely, that they are medically vulnerable and defendant has exhibited deliberate indifference to the harm that COVID-19 could cause them.
E. Adequacy of Representation Rule 23(a)(4) requires that the class representative “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). As the Supreme Court has noted, the “adequacy-of-representation requirement tends to merge with the commonality and typicality criteria of Rule 23(a), which serve as guideposts for determining whether maintenance of a class action is economical and whether the named plaintiff’s claim and the class claims are so interrelated that the interests of the class members will be fairly and adequately protected in their absence.” Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 626 n.20 (1997) (internal quotations omitted). As such, the “inquiry under Rule 23(a)(4) serves to uncover conflicts of interest between named parties and the class they seek to represent.” Id. at 625. To be an adequate class representative, the “representative must be part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members.” Id. at 625-26. The Court has found that the named plaintiffs bring claims typical of the proposed class and face the same potential harms. See Section III.D, supra. The Tenth Circuit has identified two questions relevant to the adequacy of representation inquiry: “(1) do the named plaintiffs and their counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class members and (2) will the named plaintiffs and their counsel
12

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 100 Filed 12/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 24
prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class?” Rutter & Wilbanks Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 314 F.3d 1180, 1187-88 (10th Cir. 2002) (citation om itted). Adequate representation depends on, among other factors, an absence of antagonism between the representatives and absentees, and a sharing of interest between representatives and absentees. Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 985 (9th Cir. 2011).
The parties argue that there is adequate representation because there is no conflict between the named plaintiffs and the absent class members and because plaintiffs’ attorneys are well-qualified in class action and civil rights matters. Docket No. 96 at 13-14. With regard to the first factor, the Court finds that the interests of the class are fairly and adequately protected by the named plaintiffs. There is nothing in the record or proposed settlement agreement that raises obvious concerns regarding interclass conflicts. See Amchem, 521 U.S. at 611-12. W ith regard to the second adequacy factor, plaintiffs’ attorneys are the ACLU of Colorado; Killmer, Lane and Newman, LLP; Hutchinson Black and Cook, LLC; Stimson Stancil Labranche Hubbard, LLC; and Maxted Law, LLC. Docket No. 96 at 15. They maintain that they are qualified to represent this action, and there appears to be no dispute as to their qualifications. See id. The Court finds that counsel and the named plaintiffs adequately represent the interests of the class of all current and future WCJ inmates who are medically vulnerable
F. Rule 23(b)(2) Rule 23(b)(2) certification imposes two independent but related requirements: defendant’s actions or inaction must be based on grounds generally applicable to all
13

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 100 Filed 12/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 24
class members and the injunctive relief must be appropriate for the class as a whole. Shook II, 543 F.3d at 604. “The rule therefore authorizes an inquiry into the relationship between the class, its injuries, and the relief sought, and we have interpreted the rule to require that a class must be ‘amenable to uniform group remedies.’” Id. (quoting Shook I, 386 F.3d at 973). Rule 23(b)(2) requires that a single injunction provides relief to each member of the class. Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 360. The Tenth Circuit has described two requirements of Rule 23(b)(2):
[T]he class must be sufficiently cohesive that any classwide injunctive relief can satisfy the limitations of Federal Rule Civil Procedure 65(d) – namely, the requirement that it state its terms specifically; and describe in reasonable detail the act or acts restrained or required . . . . Second, [a] class action may not be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) if relief specifically tailored to each class member would be necessary to correct the allegedly wrongful conduct of the defendant. Shook II, 543 F.3d at 604 (internal citations and quotations omitted). The parties argue that certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate because plaintiffs seek uniform standardized procedures to protect inmates from COVID-19. Docket No. 96 at 14. Defendant’s actions and inactions are based on grounds generally applicable to all class members. See Shook II, 543 F.3d at 604. Plaintiffs allege that defendant is exhibiting deliberate indifference to the impact of COVID-19 on all medically vulnerable inmates, Docket No. 96 at 1, making the ground generally applicable to the class. The Court finds that a single injunction would provide relief to all class members and relief would not need to be specifically tailored to each class member. See Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 360; Shook II, 543 F.3d at 604. The proposed consent decree is “sufficiently cohesive” to satisfy Rule 65(d) and does not avoid
14

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 100 Filed 12/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 24
“individual issues . . . by formulating an injunction at a stratospheric level of abstraction.” Shook II, 543 F.3d at 604. The Court finds that preliminary certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate.
G. Rule 23(e) Factors Rule 23(e) provides that a proposed settlement may only be approved after a “finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). In making this determination, “trial judges bear the important responsibility of protecting absent class members” and must be “assur[ed] that the settlement represents adequate compensation for the release of the class claims.” In re Pet Food Prods. Liab. Litig., 629 F.3d 333, 349 (3d Cir. 2010); see also Amchem, 521 U.S. at 623 (noting that the Rule 23(e) inquiry “protects unnamed class members from unjust or unfair settlements affecting their rights when the representatives become fainthearted before the action is adjudicated or are able to secure satisfaction of their individual claims by a compromise”) (citations omitted). To determine whether a proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, courts consider the following factors: (1) whether the proposed settlement was fairly and honestly negotiated; (2) whether serious questions of law and fact exist, placing the ultimate outcome of the litigation in doubt; (3) whether the value of an immediate recovery outweighs the mere possibility of future relief after protracted and expensive litigation; and (4) the judgment of the parties that the settlement is fair and reasonable. Rutter, 314 F.3d at 1188. If the settling parties can establish these factors, courts usually presume that the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. In re Warfarin
15

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 100 Filed 12/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 24
Sodium Antitrust Litig., 391 F.3d 516, 535 (3d Cir. 2004) (applying an “initial presumption of fairness” to a proposed settlement where: (1) it is the result of arm's length negotiations; (2) it is based on sufficient discovery; (3) the proponents of the settlement are experienced in similar litigation; and (4) only a small fraction of the class objected).
Based on the information available to the Court, the Court notes the following, which weighs in favor of preliminary approval. The proposed consent decree was the product of months of arms-length negotiations between the parties. Docket No. 96 at 3. These negotiations took place after the parties had vigorously litigated a motion for preliminary injunction, which the Court granted. Docket No. 55 at 3 n.2 (“The parties also submitted a volume of exhibits to the Court more typical of a four-day jury trial than a preliminary injunction hearing.”). The Court finds that the negotiations were done fairly and honestly.
Plaintiffs believe they would have prevailed at trial, but were uncertain what the scope of relief would be. Docket No. 96 at 4. Defendant maintains that he would have prevailed at trial. Id. While plaintiffs prevailed at the preliminary injunction phase, see Docket No. 55, plaintiffs must consider the likelihood of success of certifying a class, surviving summary judgment, and succeeding at trial. Additionally, as plaintiffs note, the scope of relief in an action such as this one is uncertain, particularly given the rapidly evolving nature of the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of the proposed settlement.
Next, the Court must determine whether the value of immediate recovery outweighs the mere possibility of future relief. This factor clearly weighs in favor of the
16

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 100 Filed 12/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 24
proposed settlement. The country is still in the grip of the COVID-19 pandemic. This makes implementation of the COVID-19 measures in the proposed settlement agreement much more valuable than waiting until a trial in mid-2021. While the Court has continued to extend the preliminary injunction, most recently until February 5, 2021, Docket No. 99, the plaintiffs cannot rely on continued extensions until the trial date. This factor weighs strongly in favor of the proposed settlement.
The final factor the Court must consider is whether the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. The parties argue that it is because the parties started with the Court’s preliminary injunction as a baseline, considered each parties’ requests for modifications, and considered plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees. Docket No. 96 at 4-5. The parties list some of the key aspects of the proposed settlement, which are stated in this order under Section III.A. It is evident that the parties believe that the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and was negotiated at arms-length by experienced counsel. Should a current inmate find the terms unfair, he or she may file an objection to the proposed settlement. Cf. In re Crocs, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2013 WL 4547404, at *12 (finding that party opposing settlement agreement could opt-out or file objections). The Court finds that the presumption of fairness is sufficient to preliminary approve the settlement agreement. IV. NOTICE
Notice is not required to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(A) (“For any class certified under Rule . . . [23](b)(2), the court may direct appropriate notice to the class.”) (emphasis added); Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 362 (“The
17

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 100 Filed 12/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 24
Rule provides no opportunity for (b)(1) or (b)(2) class members to opt out, and does not even oblige the District Court to afford them notice of the action.”); Shook II, 543 F.3d at 611 (“Rule 23(c)(2) makes notice . . . optional for (b)(2) classes.”).
Despite this, Rule 23(e) requires the Court to “direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by” a proposed settlement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B). The parties propose to post notices in portions of WCJ that house medically vulnerable inmates. Docket No. 96 at 16. The proposed notice describes the background of the case, lists key terms of the proposed settlement, and states that a current inmate may object to the proposed settlement by mailing an objection to the Clerk of Court. Docket No. 96-5. The parties argue that posted notice is sufficient because (1) the Court has already made substantial factual findings about COVID-19 and WCJ, so objections about the scope of the proposed consent decree will add little new information; (2) the proposed consent decree shows the steps that defendant and WCJ will take to protect medically vulnerable inmates, and it would be a drain on staff resources to distribute and collect individual notices; and (3) inmates were adequately represented by class counsel. Id. at 16-17.
“[N]otice must be ‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’” DeJulius v. New England Health Care Emps. Pension Fund, 429 F.3d 935, 944 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)). The standard under Rule 23(e)(1)(B) is a lower standard than the “best notice practicable under the circum stances” required by a Rule
18

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 100 Filed 12/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 24
23(a)(3) class, which itself does not require actual notice. See DeJulius, 429 F.3d at 943-44. Instead, “[d]ue process does not require notice for absent class members in all actions under Rule 23(b)(2), as long as the class members were adequately represented.” Pelt v. Utah, 539 F.3d 1271, 1289 (10th Cir. 2008).
The Court finds the parties’ first two justifications for posted notice – that the Court has already held an evidentiary hearing so objections about the scope of the proposed settlement will add little, and that the proposed settlement shows the steps defendant and WCJ will take to protect medically vulnerable inmates, Docket No. 96 at 16 – are unrelated to the procedural issue of whether or not notice is reasonably calculated to inform class members of the proposed settlement and the opportunity to object. The parties’ third justification, that it would be an unnecessary expenditure of resources to prepare and distribute individualized notices, is similarly unavailing because it is unrelated to whether posted notice will reach the desired class members. Finally, while adequate representation by class counsel is necessary for preliminary certification, it is not sufficient to make any type of notice “reasonable.”
Additionally, the proposed notice provided by the parties advises inmates to mail objections to the Clerk of Court. Docket No. 96-5 at 4. The parties have identified no authority for identifying the Court or the Clerk of Court as the recipient of class action objections. To the contrary, the practice in this Court is for plaintiffs’ counsel or a third party administrator to process the objections. See, e.g., Menocal et al v. The GEO Group, Inc., No. 14-cv-02887-JLK-MEH, Docket No. 163 at 4 ¶ 7 (D. Colo. Jan. 14, 2019) (approving notice procedure where class counsel selected third party administrator).
19

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 100 Filed 12/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 24
The parties’ vague statement that WCJ will “post notice in portions of the WCJ that house medically vulnerable inmates where it is visible to them” does not allow the Court to determine whether such notice will reasonably appraise class members of the proposed settlement. See Docket No. 96 at 16. The parties do not indicate how this procedure would provide notice to “past” or “future” class members or medically vulnerable inmates who are placed in the wrong area of the jail. See id. at 16-17. Moreover, they do not discuss whether such notice will be provided in both English and Spanish. See id. If the parties revise the definition of class members, some of these issues may disappear. And perhaps there is no reason to believ e that medically vulnerable detainees will be inadvertently assigned to the wrong area. However, before approving the proposed settlement, the Court needs more information on these issues. Therefore, the Court finds that the proposed notice procedure is not reasonably calculated to apprise class members of the settlement. V. CLASS COUNSEL
When certifying a class, a Court “must appoint class counsel.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). In appointing class counsel, the Court must consider:
(A)(i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the action; (ii) counsel’s experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action; (iii) counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and (iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class; [and] (B) may consider any other matter pertinent to counsel’s ability to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class[.] Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1). Plaintiffs’ current attorneys – the ACLU of Colorado; Killmer, Lane and Newman, LLP; Hutchinson Black and Cook, LLC; Stimson Stancil Labranche
20

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 100 Filed 12/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 24
Hubbard, LLC; and Maxted Law, LLC – request to be appointed class counsel. Docket No. 96 at 15. Plaintiffs’ attorneys state that they are experienced civil rights lawyers who have years of experience handling class actions in federal and state courts. Id. Counsel have sufficient experience in class actions and their knowledge of the applicable law, as exhibited in the case up to this point, weighs in favor of their appointment. Similarly, counsel have demonstrated that they have the resources to commit to the litigation. It is unusual to appoint five law firms for a class of about 345 people. However, in this case there is no common fund constituting the settlement, so attorneys’ fees will not diminish the fund to the detriment of the class. Instead, the settlement includes a set amount of fees. Docket No. 96 at 8. Importantly, the relief to the class is injunctive, not monetary. Id. Therefore, the Court finds that it is appropriate to appoint plaintiffs’ counsel as class counsel. Cf. Torres-Vallejo v. Creativexteriors, Inc., 220 F. Supp. 3d. 1074, 1087 (D. Colo. 2016) (appointing one law firm lead counsel and three other law firms as additional class counsel). VI. PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT (“PLRA”)
The PLRA3 requires that, before approving a class settlement in a prison condition case, the Court must find that the relief is “narrowly drawn.” 18 U.S.C. §§ 3626(a)(1), (c)(1). Under the PLRA, relief is narrowly drawn if it “extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive
3 This statute extends to relief requested by pretrial detainees. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(3) (defining “prisoner” as, among other things, “any person subject to incarceration . . . who is accused of . . . violations of criminal law”). The Weld County Jail is a “prison” within the meaning of the statute. See id. § 3626(g)(5) (defining “prison” as, among other things, any “local facility that incarcerates or detains [individuals] accused of . . . violations of criminal law”).
21

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 100 Filed 12/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 24
means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” Id. at § 3626(a)(1). In determining whether the proposed relief is narrowly drawn, “[t]he court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.” Id. However, “Congress did not intend the PLRA to alter class certification requirements under Rule 23.” Shook I, 386 F. 3d at 971. The Court must determine whether class certification is appropriate before turning to the question of whether the proposed relief complies with the PLRA. See id.
Part of the proposed settlement requires the WCJ to keep its population as low as possible, while protecting public safety. Docket No. 96-1 at 3. Currently, the WCJ will accept detainees charged with class three felonies, felonies enhanced by “VRA/Domestic Violence,”4 misdemeanor charges enhanced by “VRA/Domestic Violence,” protection order violations, and probation and parole warrants. Docket No. 85-2 at 2. WCJ does not currently accept detainees arrested on municipal warrants, civil commitments, or detox refusals. Id. The proposed settlement requires WCJ to maintain this standard until the COVID-19 Emergency End Date or until the WCJ housing unit that is currently closed for construction is reopened. Docket No. 96-1 at 6. If the housing unit reopens before the COVID-19 Emergency End Date, then a different set of less stringent intake measures will apply to keep the WCJ population low while maintaining public safety. Id.
The Court finds that the proposed relief is narrowly drawn and any impact on public safety has been mitigated. The Court finds that the proposed settlement
4 The parties’ motion does not define “VRA,” but the Court presumes that if refers to the Colorado Victim Rights Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-4.1-301 et. seq.
22

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 100 Filed 12/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 24
agreement complies with the PLRA because the majority of its provisions are applicable only to medically vulnerable inmates, but see Docket No. 96 at 6 (providing two cloth masks per non-medically vulnerable inmates), and it remains in effect only during the length of the pandemic. Id. at 9 (setting the COVID-19 Emergency End Date to the expiration of Executive Order D 2020 205 Declaring a Disaster Emergency Due to the Presence of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Colorado). Additionally, the policies restricting the persons the WCJ will accept have been in place since September 2, 2020, with no evidence of any adverse impact on public safety. See Docket No. 85-2 at 1. VII. CONCLUSION
The Court will hold in abeyance a decision on the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Certification of a Class and Appointment of Class Counsel, and Permission to Post Class Notice [Docket No. 96] so that the parties can supplement their motion. The supplemental briefing shall discuss locations for posting notice within the WCJ in English and Spanish, the location for sending objections that does not involve the Court, and inclusion of “past” and “future” inmates in the definition of the class.
Wherefore, it is
23

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 100 Filed 12/11/20 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 24

ORDERED that the parties shall file supplemental briefs on or before December 18, 2020.

DATED December 11, 2020

BY THE COURT:
__________________________ PHILIP A. BRIMMER Chief United States District Judge

24

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 102 Filed 12/29/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Case No. 20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC
JESUS MARTINEZ, and CHAD HUNTER,
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Supplement to Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement [Docket No. 101]. The Court ordered the parties to supplement their Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement [Docket No. 96] in order to address whether past and future inmates of the Weld County Jail (“WCJ”) should be included in the class definition, the address where objections should be mailed, and the locations for posting notice of the proposed settlement in the WCJ in English and Spanish. Docket No. 100 at 23. I. ANALYSIS
A. Definition of Class The parties proposed class definition includes past and future inmates of the WCJ. Docket No. 96 at 9. The Court identified issues with how the proposed notice would reach past inmates and how released inmates would benefit from the settlement

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 102 Filed 12/29/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 6
agreement’s proposed injunctive relief. Docket No. 100 at 7. In the supplement, the parties agree that past inmates should be removed from the class definition. Docket No. 101 at 3. The Court finds that withdrawing past inmates from the proposed class cures the issues identified.
The Court also identified issues with future inmates, noting that the parties did not indicate how notice would reach future inmates and that “it is unclear to the Court why the class definition requires the inclusion of future inmates when the proposed relief extends for a defined period of time and covers all medically vulnerable inmates during that time.” Docket No. 100 at 6, 8.
The Court finds that the parties’ supplement provides sufficient justification for the inclusion of future inmates in the proposed class. See Docket No. 101 at 3-5. Regarding the Court’s concern about how notice would reach future class members, the parties indicate that future members will be given notice of the consent decree within a reasonable time after being booked into the WCJ. Id. at 5. The parties also state that, despite the temporally limited nature of the consent decree, the inclusion of future inmates is necessary because it provides defendant with a “critical safeguard” against claims for injunctive relief by future inmates that differ from the relief set forth in the proposed consent decree. Id. The Court finds that the inclusion of future medically vulnerable inmates in the consent decree is appropriate.
B. Recipient of Objections The Court ordered the parties to identify someone other than the Clerk of Court to receive any objections to the proposed settlement. Docket No. 100 at 7-8. The
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 102 Filed 12/29/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 6
parties have identified one of plaintiffs’ counsel, Daniel D. Williams, as that person. Docket Nos. 101 at 6; 101-1 at 4; 101-2 at 4. T he Court finds that Mr. Williams is an appropriate person to receive any objections.
C. Location of Notice Posting The Court ordered the parties to provide greater detail about how notice would be communicated to class members within the WCJ, including those who may have been inadvertently placed in the wrong area of the WCJ. Docket No. 100 at 20. The parties’ supplement states that the proposed notice will be uploaded to the WCJ’s jailwide television system in both English and Spanish. Docket No. 101 at 7. Each pag e of the proposed notice will be shown in English and Spanish for two minutes every day during the course of the daily inmate video briefing with a once-through repeat, meaning that the proposed notice will be posted for 32 minutes each day during the notice period. Id. The parties do not define the notice period, but the Court construes it to mean the period of time between the entry of this order and the date of the Fairness Hearing. The video broadcast will inform inmates that a paper copy of the notice is available for review upon request at the guard station in each housing unit, and each guard station will contain an English and Spanish version of the notice. Id. The parties state that, once the consent decree is entered, the W CJ will modify this practice to have the consent decree take the place of the notice found in the housing unit guard station and the morning briefing will inform inmates that the guard station has a copy of the consent decree. Id. The Court determines that this method of proposed notice cures
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 102 Filed 12/29/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 6
the earlier defects. The Court finds that the notice procedures are designed to reasonably apprise class members of the proposed settlement. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B). II. CONCLUSION
The Court held in abeyance a decision on the motion for preliminary approval [Docket No. 96] to allow the parties to supplement their motion. Docket No. 100 at 23. The supplemental brief filed by the parties has cured the defects identified by the Court, as explained above. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Certification of a Class and Appointment of Class Counsel, and Permission to Post Class Notice [Docket No. 96] is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that the Proposed Consent Decree and Final Judgment [Docket No. 96-1] is PRELIMINARILY APPROVED with regard to present and future medically vulnerable inmates. It is further
ORDERED that the proposed class of all present and future medically vulnerable inmates housed in the Weld County Jail from April 7, 2020 through the COVID-19 Emergency End Date is PRELIMINARILY CERTIFIED for the purposes of settlement. It is further
ORDERED that plaintiffs’ attorneys are appointed class counsel. It is further ORDERED that a Fairness Hearing is set for February 12, 2021 at 3:30 p.m. by Video Teleconference (“VTC”) only. It is further
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 102 Filed 12/29/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 6
ORDERED that the parties shall update the proposed notic e in English [Docket No. 101-1] and Spanish [Docket No. 101-2] to ref lect that the preliminary injunction is currently set to expire February 5, 2021, that the Fairness Hearing is set for February 12, 2021 at 3:30 p.m. by VTC only, that class members must mail written objections by February 5, 2021, and that there are procedures f or an objector to connect to the Fairness Hearing. To connect to the Fairness Hearing, a class member should call 1877-848-7030 and then enter 2001872#. Calling this telephone number will allow class members to listen to the Fairness Hearing, and when it is the appropriate time to raise any objections, the Court will unmute the line and permit class members to state objections. When the objections are over, the Court will mute the line again, though class members may continue to listen to the Fairness Hearing. Any class member who has submitted an objection in writing by the deadline set forth above may connect to the Fairness Hearing and be heard as to why the proposed settlement agreement should not be approved. Any class members who fails to object will be deemed to have waived the right to object to the proposed settlement agreement. It is further
ORDERED that the parties update the Proposed Consent Decree and Final Judgment [Docket No. 96-1] to reflect that the proposed class does not include past inmates, to revise the case caption, to amend the definition of “plaintiffs.” The parties shall then file the updated document with the Court. It is further
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 102 Filed 12/29/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 6

ORDERED that the parties shall post the updated notice in English [Docket No. 101-1] and Spanish [Docket No. 101-2] in the W CJ in the matter described in the parties’ Joint Supplement [Docket No. 101].

DATED December 29, 2020

BY THE COURT:

__________________________ PHILIP A. BRIMMER Chief United States District Judge

6

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 112 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 14
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Case No. 20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC
JESUS MARTINEZ, and CHAD HUNTER,
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Final Certification of the Proposed Class [Docket No. 105]. On April 7, 2020, plaintiffs brought this case as a class action alleging that defendant Sheriff Steven Reams acted with deliberate indifference to the health of medically vulnerable persons in custody at the Weld County Jail (“WCJ”) by failing to take necessary measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Docket Nos. 1, 7 at 25-27. I. BACKGROUND
On April 7, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Docket No. 1. On April 30, 2020, the Court conducted a hearing on plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion. Docket No. 52. On May 11, 2020, the Court issued a preliminary injunction that identified actions defendant had to take to protect medically vulnerable inmates at

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 112 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 14
the WCJ. See generally Docket No. 55. This preliminary injunction was extended several times and expired on February 5, 2021. See Docket No. 99.
On November 30, 2020, the parties filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement, certification of a class and appointment of class counsel, and permission to post class notice. Docket No. 96. The Court ordered the parties to file a supplemental brief on the issues of notice, the definition of the class, and where objections to the settlement should be mailed. Docket No. 100 at 23. Upon review of the parties’ supplement, the Court preliminarily approved the proposed consent decree and final judgment, preliminarily certified the proposed class, appointed plaintiffs’ attorneys as class counsel, and set the case for a fairness hearing. Docket No. 102 at 4. On February 11, 2021, the parties filed a joint motion for final approval of the class action settlement and certification of the proposed class. Docket No. 105. The Court held a fairness hearing on February 12, 2021. Docket No. 109. At the f airness hearing, the Court indicated that it would grant the motion for final approval and would sign the proposed consent decree and final judgment. See id. II. FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION
Approval of a class action settlement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 takes place in two stages. In the first stage, the Court preliminarily certifies a settlement class, preliminarily approves the settlement agreement, and authorizes that notice be given to the class so that interested class members may object to the fairness of the settlement. In the second stage, after notice is given to the putative class, the Court holds a fairness hearing at which it addresses (1) any timely objections to the treatment of this
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 112 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 14
litigation as a class action, and (2) any objections to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the settlement terms. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2); see, e.g., McReynolds v. Richards-Cantave, 588 F.3d 790, 803 (2d Cir. 2009).
District courts have broad discretion in granting or denying class certification. Shook v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of the Cnty. of El Paso (“Shook II”), 543 F.3d 597, 603 (10th Cir. 2008). “[C]ertification is proper only if ‘the trial court is satisfied, after a rigorous analysis, that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied.’” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350-51 (2011) (quoting Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982)).
A district court may certify a class action if the proposed class satisfies the prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) as well as the requirements of one of the three types of classes identified in Rule 23(b). Where the plaintiff applies for class certification, plaintiff bears the burden of proving that Rule 23’s requirements are satisfied. DG ex rel. Stricklin v. Devaughn, 594 F.3d 1188, 1194 (10th Cir. 2010) (citing Shook v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of the Cnty. of El Paso, 386 F.3d 963, 968 (10th Cir. 2004)). Here, the parties jointly moved for certification for the purposes of settlement only. See Docket No. 96 at 10 n.2 (defendant reserves the right to contest class certification if the settlement is not approved).
A. Rule 23(a) Rule 23(a) requires that (1) the class be so numerous that joinder is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims of the representative party are typical of those of the class; and (4) the representative
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 112 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 14
parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). The Court found each of the requirements met in the order on the motion for preliminary approval, Docket No. 100 at 7-13, and incorporates those f indings herein.1 Accordingly, the requirements of Rule 23(a) are met.
B. Rule 23(b)(2) The Court preliminarily certified the class under Rule 23(b)(2), Docket No. 102 at 4, which states that a class action may be maintained if “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Rule 23(b)(2) certification imposes two independent but related requirements: defendant’s actions or inaction must be based on grounds generally applicable to all class members and the injunctive relief must be appropriate for the class as a whole. Shook II, 543 F.3d at 604. The Court previously found that preliminary certification under Rule 23(b)(2) was appropriate, Docket No. 100 at 15, and the Court now finds that final certification is appropriate for the same reasons. III. FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT A. Overview of the Consent Decree and Final Judgment The class consists of All present and future inmates housed within the Weld County Jail from April 7, 2020 through the “COVID-19 Emergency End Date” who are
1 At the fairness hearing, counsel for defense stated that at least one of the named plaintiffs was still held at the WCJ. The Court found in its order on the motion for preliminary approval that both named plaintiffs brought claims that are typical of the proposed class. Docket No. 100 at 11-12. The fact that only one may remain at the jail does not defeat typicality.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 112 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 14
“medically vulnerable.”
“Medically vulnerable” means inmates who, pursuant to CDC guidelines for correctional facilities like the WCJ which exist as of the date this proposed Consent Decree and Final Judgment was submitted to the Court, have one or more of the following conditions: are 65 years and older; have chronic lung disease including COPD; have moderate to severe asthma; have serious heart conditions such as heart failure, coronary artery disease or cardiomyopathies; have sickle cell disease; are immunocompromised; have severe obesity (e.g. BMI of 30 or higher); have diabetes; have chronic kidney disease and are undergoing dialysis; have liver disease; have cancer; are pregnant; or are former or current cigarette smokers.
The “COVID-19 Emergency End Date” is the date on which Executive Order D 2020 205 issued by Colorado Governor Jared Polis, Declaring a Disaster Emergency Due to the Presence of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Colorado, as subsequently amended or extended, expires and is not replaced by a similar Executive Order in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
Docket No. 110 at 2, 5. There are no subclasses. Key terms of the consent decree
include that: (1) WCJ will identify medically vulnerable inmates during booking, protect
them during the remainder of the intake process to the extent possible, and provide
them with a document stating their status; (2) WCJ will attempt to single-cell medically
vulnerable inmates in the intake/transition units and will continue to limit their exposure
in the general jail population; (3) WCJ will medically isolate COVID-19 positive inmates
in a non-punitive environment; (4) WCJ will continue enhanced sanitation and will
distribute masks to inmates; (5) healthcare processionals will monitor medically
vulnerable inmates for COVID-19 symptoms and will provide testing to inmates
consistent with CDC guidelines; (6) defendant will maintain modified arrest standards
to reduce jail population and will advise Weld County police chiefs to be judicious with
jail space on a regular basis; (7) every two weeks, WCJ will provide the Chief Judge for
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 112 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 14
the Nineteenth Judicial District of Colorado and the Colorado Division of Adult Parole a list of all inmates housed at WCJ, with a request to the Chief Judge for a docket review for potential judicial action; (8) defendant will comply with data reporting requirements and plaintiffs’ counsel will not make additional requests; (9) plaintiffs and the class will release claims for injunctive and declaratory relief arising from COVID-19 at the WCJ, but that does not include claims concerning conduct that occurs after the date the Consent Decree is entered, and it does not include any money damages claims; (10) defendant will pay counsel for plaintiffs $122,387.60 in attorney’s fees and costs; and (11) there is no admission of wrongdoing by defendant. Id. at 5-8.
B. Notice to the Settlement Class Rule 23(e) requires the Court to “direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by” a proposed settlement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B). “[N]otice must be ‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’” DeJulius v. New England Health Care Emps. Pension Fund, 429 F.3d 935, 944 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)). The Court found that the parties’ initial proposed notice was inadequate and ordered the parties to file supplemental briefing on notice. Docket No. 100 at 20. In the supplemental briefing, the parties stated that each page of the notice would be shown in English and Spanish for two minutes every day during the course of the daily inmate video briefing with a once-through repeat, meaning that the notice would be posted for 32 minutes each day during the
6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 112 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 14
notice period. Docket No. 101 at 7. Additionally, the video broadcast would inform inmates that a paper copy of the notice was available for review upon request at the guard station in each housing unit, and each guard station would contain an English and Spanish version of the notice. Id. The Court found that this proposed notice procedure was designed to reasonably apprise class members of the proposed settlement, and thus satisfied Rule 23(e)(1). Docket No. 102 at 4. The parties’ motion for final approval states that notice was posted in this manner from January 1, 2021 to February 5, 2021. Docket No. 105 at 4. At the f airness hearing, the Court found that this notice procedure satisfied Rule 23(e)(1). Docket No. 109.
C. Objections The Court received two objections to the consent decree.2 Docket No. 105 at 45. Mr. Bret Brockel, who is a member of the class currently confined at the WCJ, objected on the basis that he wishes to recover money damages from the jail. Docket No. 106. Because the consent decree preserves the right of a class member to bring a separate lawsuit seeking money damages, the Court overruled his objection at the fairness hearing. Docket No. 109 at 1. At the fairness hearing, Mr. Patrick D. Kane objected that certain deputies in WCJ were not wearing masks or practicing social distancing, surfaces were not cleaned regularly, hand sanitizer stations that the defendant claimed were in use were
2 The motion for final approval states that Jesus Martinez, a named plaintiff, submitted a letter to class counsel in response to the proposed consent decree regarding his conditions of confinement. Docket No. 105 at 5. However, Mr. Martinez requested that his letter not be submitted to the Court as an objection, and he did not appear at the fairness hearing to object. See id.
7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 112 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 14
in fact nonexistent, and the lockdowns in the jail were excessive. Mr. Kane additionally noted that he had filed five grievances with WCJ on these matters. The Court found that all of the issues raised by Mr. Kane are addressed in the consent decree. See Docket No. 110 at 10-11 (WCJ must allow the maximum daily out-of-cell time it can provide while adhering to cohorting and social distancing, WCJ must ensure enhanced sanitation in housing units, and all WCJ staff and third party contractors are required to wear a face mask at all times when interacting with inmates). Additionally, the consent decree requires WCJ to report to the ACLU of Colorado, inter alia, average daily populations of medically vulnerable inmates and the number and results of COVID-19 tests administered. Id. at 14. To the extent WCJ fails to abide by the terms of the consent decree, plaintiffs’ counsel may informally resolve the issue or may seek to enforce the consent decree with the Court through contempt proceedings. The Court also noted at the fairness hearing that Mr. Kane has the remedy of filing grievances available to him. Accordingly, Mr. Kane’s objection is overruled.
D. Analysis of Rule 23(e) Factors Rule 23(e) provides that a proposed settlement may only be approved after a “finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). In making this determination, “trial judges bear the important responsibility of protecting absent class members” and must be “assur[ed] that the settlement represents adequate compensation for the release of the class claims.” In re Pet Food Prods. Liab. Litig., 629 F.3d 333, 349 (3d Cir. 2010); see also Amchem, 521 U.S. at 623 (noting that the Rule 23(e) inquiry “protects unnamed class members from unjust or unfair settlements
8

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 112 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 14
affecting their rights when the representatives become fainthearted before the action is adjudicated or are able to secure satisfaction of their individual claims by a compromise”) (citations omitted).
To determine whether a proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, courts consider the following factors: (1) whether the proposed settlement was fairly and honestly negotiated; (2) whether serious questions of law and fact exist, placing the ultimate outcome of the litigation in doubt; (3) whether the value of an immediate recovery outweighs the mere possibility of future relief after protracted and expensive litigation; and (4) the judgment of the parties that the settlement is fair and reasonable. Rutter & Wilbanks Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 314 F.3d 1180, 1188 (10th Cir. 2002). If the settling parties can establish these factors, courts usually presume that the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig., 391 F.3d 516, 535 (3d Cir. 2004) (applying an “initial presumption of fairness” to a proposed settlement where: (1) it is the result of arm's length negotiations; (2) it is based on sufficient discovery; (3) the proponents of the settlement are experienced in similar litigation; and (4) only a small fraction of the class objected).
At the fairness hearing, the Court found that the consent decree was fair, reasonable, and adequate because it met all of the factors outlined by Rutter. See Docket No. 109. The consent decree was the product of months of arms-length negotiations between the parties. Docket No. 105 at 3. These negotiations took place after the parties had vigorously litigated a motion for preliminary injunction. See Docket No. 55 at 3 n.2 (“The parties also submitted a volume of exhibits to the Court more typical of a four-day jury trial than a preliminary injunction hearing.”). The Court
9

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 112 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 14
finds that the negotiations were done fairly and honestly. Serious questions exist regarding this complex litigation, especially given the ever-changing nature of the COVID-19 pandemic. The value of immediate recovery clearly outweighs the mere possibility of future relief because implementation of the COVID-19 safety measures in the consent decree are much more valuable now than in the future. The parties believe that the consent decree is fair and reasonable and was negotiated at arms length by experienced counsel. Docket No. 96 at 8. Accordingly, the Court finds that the consent decree is fair, reasonable, and adequate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). IV. ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS
The consent decree includes a payment of $122,387.60 from defendant to plaintiffs’ counsel. Docket No. 110 at 14. In a certified class action, the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees that are authorized by the parties’ agreement provided that (1) the claim for an award is made by motion under Rule 54(d)(2) and notice of the motion is directed to class members; (2) a class member or party from whom payment is sought may object; and (3) the Court finds facts and states its legal conclusions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h). The parties included the attorney’s fees provision in their joint motion for preliminary approval and the notice provided to class members. Docket No. 96 at 8; Docket No. 101-1 at 3. The parties submitted a breakdown of the attorney’s fees calculation applying the lodestar method, as informed by the rate caps and requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). Docket No. 105 at 6-7. The $122,387.60 fee represents a discount of approximately 55% off what plaintiffs’ counsel would typically have charged without the application of the PLRA. Id. at 9. Additionally, this amount does not account for approximately 81 hours of additional
10

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 112 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 14
work done after July 2020. Id. The Court finds that the attorney’s fees award of $122,387.60 is reasonable and appropriate. 3 V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED the parties’ Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement and Final Certification of the Proposed Class [Docket No. 105] is
GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification [Docket No. 2] is
DENIED AS MOOT. It is further
ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for the purposes of settlement only, the class is certified as follows:
All present and future inmates housed within the Weld County Jail from April 7, 2020 through the “COVID-19 Emergency End Date” who are “medically vulnerable.” “Medically vulnerable” means inmates who, pursuant to CDC guidelines for correctional facilities like the WCJ which exist as of the date this proposed Consent Decree and Final Judg ment was submitted to the Court, have one or more of the following conditions: are 65 years and older; have chronic lung disease including COPD; have moderate to severe asthma; have serious heart conditions such as heart failure, coronary artery disease or cardiomyopathies; have sickle cell disease; are immunocompromised; have severe obesity (e.g. BMI of 30 or higher); have diabetes; have chronic kidney disease and are undergoing dialysis; have liver disease; have cancer; are pregnant; or are former or current cigarette smokers.
3 The Court has previously found that the consent decree complies with the PLRA. Docket No. 100 at 21-23. The Court incorporates that finding herein.
11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 112 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 14
The “COVID-19 Emergency End Date” is the date on which Executive Order D 2020 205 issued by Colorado Governor Jared Polis, Declaring a Disaster Emergency Due to the Presence of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Colorado, as subsequently amended or extended, expires and is not replaced by a similar Executive Order in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. It is further ORDERED that the Court finds, solely for the purposes of this settlement, that the prerequisites for a class action under Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied in that: (a) the members of the settlement class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact common to the class; (c) the claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class; (d) the named plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel have fairly and adequately represented and protected the interests of all of the class members; and (e) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole. It is further ORDERED that the Court finds that the notice given to members of the class was reasonably calculated under the circumstances to apprise such members of the pendency of this action and to afford them an opportunity to object to. Because the Court has afforded a full opportunity to all class members to be heard, the Court further determines that all members of the class are bound by the Consent Decree and Final Judgment. It is further ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court finds that the Consent Decree and Final Judgment is fair, reasonable, and
12

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 112 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 14
adequate. Accordingly, the Court gives final approval to the Consent Decree and Final Judgment in all respects and authorizes and directs the parties to consummate the Consent Decree and Final Judgment in accordance with its terms and provisions. It is further
ORDERED that the parties and their counsel shall fulfill their obligations and duties under the Consent Decree and Final Judgment. It is further
ORDERED that plaintiffs and all class members are permanently enjoined and barred from asserting, initiating, prosecuting, or continuing any of the claims released by the Consent Decree and Final Judgment. It is further
ORDERED that defendant shall pay plaintiffs’ counsel $122,387.60 in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Consent Decree and Final Judgment. It is further
ORDERED that neither this Order nor the Consent Decree and Final Judgment is an admission or concession by defendant respecting any facts, liabilities, or wrongdoing. It is further
ORDERED that, without affecting the finality of this Order, this Court retains jurisdiction to consider all further matters arising out of or connected with the Consent Decree and Final Judgment, including its implementation and enforcement. It is further
13

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 112 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 14

ORDERED that judgment shall be entered dismissing this case with prejudice.

DATED February 16, 2021

BY THE COURT:
__________________________ PHILIP A. BRIMMER Chief United States District Judge

14

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 110 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 17
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC JESUS MARTINEZ; and CHAD HUNTER,
Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
CONSENT DECREE AND FINAL JUDGMENT
For good cause shown, including based on the evidence admitted at the evidentiary hearing in this matter on April 30, 2020, and in light of the parties’ stipulation to the terms set forth below, the Court now Orders as follows:
I. DEFINITIONS U
“COVID-19” means the disease caused by the 2019 novel coronavirus SARSCoV-2 and all strains thereof.
“Plaintiffs” means Plaintiffs Jesus Martinez and Chad Hunter. “Inmates” means and includes persons who are housed within the Weld County Jail, including all persons who are sentenced to the Weld County Jail, pretrial detainees, or on sentence holds for the Colorado Department of Corrections. “Class” means all present and future inmates housed within the Weld County Jail from April 7, 2020 through the COVID-19 Emergency End Date (as defined herein) who meet the definition of “medically vulnerable inmates” as defined herein.

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 110 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 17
“Defendant” means Steven Reams, in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Weld County.
“WCJ” means Weld County Jail. “Preliminary Injunction Order” means this Court’s Order dated May 11, 2020 preliminarily enjoining conduct described therein, as subsequently amended and extended. “CDC” means the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention within the United States Department of Health and Human Services. “EPA” means the United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Medically vulnerable” means inmates who, pursuant to CDC guidelines for correctional facilities like the WCJ which exist as of the date the proposed Consent Decree and Final Judgment was submitted to the Court, have one or more of the following conditions: are 65 years and older; have chronic lung disease including COPD; have moderate to severe asthma; have serious heart conditions such as heart failure, coronary artery disease or cardiomyopathies; have sickle cell disease; are immunocompromised; have severe obesity (e.g. BMI of 30 or higher); have diabetes; have chronic kidney disease and are undergoing dialysis; have liver disease; have cancer; are pregnant; or are former or current cigarette smokers.
II. RECITALS U
A. On or about April 7, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the abovecaptioned civil action, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC (the “Lawsuit”), in which they asserted official capacity claims against Defendant contending their constitutional rights were violated in connection with Defendant’s response to COVID-19 at the WCJ,
2

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 110 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 17
and seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and attorney fees and costs only, and not any compensatory or punitive damages.
B. On or about May 11, 2020, the Court entered the Preliminary Injunction Order in the Lawsuit.
C. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. D. The Parties to the Lawsuit consent to this Consent Decree and Final Judgment as a settlement and compromise to resolve the Lawsuit.
III. TERMS AND CONDITIONS U
A. Class Certification. U The Parties submitted a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement, Certification of a Class and Appointment of Class Counsel, and Permission to Post Class Notice. Docket No. 96. The motion specified the manner of providing notice to class members, which was agreed to by all parties, and paid for by Defendant. The Court ordered supplemental briefing on the issues of notice and the definition of the class, which the parties provided. Docket Nos. 100, 101. B. Full Release of Claims and Commitments from Plaintiffs
U
(1) Release of Claims. Except with respect to the relief provided in this Consent Decree and Final Judgment, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and for and on behalf of the Class as is reflected in the aforementioned joint motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement, as updated by the parties’ joint supplement, hereby release and forever discharge Defendant and all employees of Defendant and/or of the Weld County Sheriff’s Office from any and all claims or causes of action for injunctive and declaratory relief concerning or relating in any manner to COVID-19, which may have accrued up to and including the date of this Order (including all attorney fees,
3

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 110 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 17
costs, and expenses which do or may relate thereto), and which would seek, by means of declaratory or injunctive relief, to address subject matters governed by this Order. Plaintiffs further understand that factual matters now unknown to them may have given or may hereinafter give rise to disputes that are currently unknown, unanticipated, and unsuspected. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and for and on behalf of the Class as is reflected in the aforementioned joint motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement, as updated by the parties’ joint supplement, acknowledge this Consent Decree is intended to and does release both known and unknown claims and causes of action for injunctive and declaratory relief, including those which would seek by means of declaratory or injunctive relief to address subject matters governed by this Order.
(2) Restriction on CORA Requests. Neither Plaintiffs, nor counsel when acting on behalf of Plaintiffs or members of the Class, nor employees or agents of Plaintiffs, shall request or cause to be requested from Defendant or any employee of the Weld County Sheriff’s Office under the Colorado Open Records Act or the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act the following: (a) any information or documents relating to Defendant’s response to COVID-19 at the WCJ; or (b) any information or data relating to average daily population or population statistics at the WCJ. C. Covenant Not to Sue
U
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and for and on behalf of the Class as is reflected in the aforementioned joint motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement, as updated by the parties’ joint supplement, agree not to sue Defendant or any employee of the Weld County Sheriff’s Office for injunctive or declaratory relief regarding or relating to COVID-19 for conduct that occurred prior to the date of this Consent Decree and Final Judgment.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 110 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 17
D. Agreement Respecting Taxes U Plaintiffs are responsible for any tax liability from any taxing authority with respect
to the payment of Attorney Fees and Costs as specified below and Defendant shall have no tax liability with respect thereto. E. Obligations of Defendant
U
From the date of this Consent Decree and Final Judgment, until and including the date on which Executive Order D 2020 205 issued by Colorado Governor Jared Polis, Declaring a Disaster Emergency Due to the Presence of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Colorado, as subsequently amended or extended, expires and is not replaced by a similar Executive Order in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic (the “COVID-19 Emergency End Date”), Defendant shall:
(1) Identify all medically vulnerable inmates during the booking and intake process and inform any medically vulnerable inmates that they have been so designated. The scope of what makes an inmate medically vulnerable shall be updated to conform with current CDC guidance in the event the CDC modifies the aforesaid guidelines, which update shall be self-executing upon counsel for Defendant providing counsel for Plaintiffs and members of the Class either (a) an official order from the CDC which would be self-authenticating pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 902(1), or (b) an equivalent official publication from the CDC’s website which otherwise would be self-authenticating pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 902(5). All inmates must be asked if they have any of the conditions that would classify them as “medically vulnerable” as defined herein at intake. The descriptions for screening questions must, at a minimum, mirror the level of specificity in the definition of “medically vulnerable” set forth above, and must be given in Spanish for persons who indicate a preference for conditions to be listed in Spanish.
5

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 110 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 17
The descriptions must also provide a list of the most common conditions that meet the definitions of “immunocompromised,” and “liver disease.” Self-reported conditions are to be accepted as true unless and until there is definitive medical evidence to the contrary. Until the process of determining whether inmates in intake have one or more of the aforesaid conditions which would cause them to be designated as medically vulnerable is completed, inmates should not be exposed to other inmates and should be exposed only to the smallest number of WCJ staff as possible.
(2) Take actions to keep the WCJ population as low as possible, while protecting public safety, so as to maximize the number of medically vulnerable inmates who can be housed in a single-cell, which shall consist of the following:
a. Maintain the “Emergency Arrest Standards Due To COVID-19/Jail Construction” included in ECF 85-2 filed with the Court in this Lawsuit until either the COVID-19 Emergency End Date or the date the WCJ housing unit closed for construction as indicated to the Court in ECF 85-2 is reopened, whichever is sooner.
b. Upon said housing unit being reopened, if sooner, subsequently maintain “Modification to Arrest Standards Due To COVID-19” attached hereto as Exhibit A-1, until the COVID-19 Emergency End Date. 1
P0F
c. Retain the right no longer than the COVID-19 Emergency End Date, in Defendant’s sole discretion, to reinstitute the “Emergency Arrest
1 With respect to the offenses identified in Paragraph 4 under the heading “The Weld County Jail Will Accept” in Exhibit A-1, for anyone booked into the WCJ in the narrow additional categories specified in said Paragraph 4, Defendant will give notice to the Weld County Attorney, who will in turn notify counsel for the Class.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 110 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 17
Standards Due To COVID-19/Jail Construction” included in ECF 85-2 filed with the Court in this Lawsuit, or substantially similar arrest standards if appropriate based on WCJ inmate population, per capita when considering all housing units then open and the housing units’ then-current uses, increasing to a same or similar percentage level which motivated the filing of ECF 85-2 with the Court in this Lawsuit. If Defendant needs to reinstitute such Arrest Standards, Defendant by and through his counsel shall, contemporaneously with such reinstitution, notify Mark Silverstein at msilverstein@aclu-co.org and Nicole Loy at nloy@aclu-co.org. d. Disseminate regular advisements to the Weld Chiefs of Police to be judicious about minimizing the scope of arrestees in their jurisdictions and maximizing the scope of persons who are issued a summons or given a bond upon personal recognizance in their jurisdictions. e. At least one time every fourteen days:
i. Provide a list of all inmates currently housed in the WCJ to the Chief Judge of the District Court for Colorado’s 19th Judicial District with a copy to Mark Silverstein at msilverstein@acluco.org and Nicole Loy at nloy@aclu-co.org, requesting a docket review for potential judicial action;
ii. Provide a list of all inmates subject to parole holds to the Colorado Division of Adult Parole, requesting a review for potential parole action; and
7

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 110 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 17
iii. Provide Mark Silverstein at msilverstein@aclu-co.org and nloy@aclu-co.org with an identification of which inmates in the WCJ are classified as “medically vulnerable” pursuant to this Consent Decree, for a lookback period of the prior fourteen days defined as the two-weeks-previous Monday at 05:00:00 AM through the previous Sunday at 05:00:01 AM, thus resulting in fourteen (14) days of reported data, at 05:00:00 AM each day of said lookback period. Mr. Silverstein, for himself and on behalf of all counsel who entered an appearance for Plaintiffs or the Class or both in the Lawsuit, agrees such identification shall be used only by counsel acting on behalf of Plaintiffs or members of the Class and shall be used only for class counsel purposes.
f. With respect to each WCJ inmate classified as “medically vulnerable” as set forth herein and who is currently in WCJ general population or in the intake/transition units, or who may subsequently booked into the WCJ through and including the COVID-19 Emergency End Date, promptly furnish to each such inmate a written notification that such inmate has been classified as “medically vulnerable” and is at a higher risk for experiencing adverse health consequences from contracting COVID-19, if contracted, based on the intake screening of such inmate. This form will contain such inmate’s name and date of birth, the date such inmate’s intake screening was conducted, and the initials and/or signature of the medical professional who conducted it. An exemplar of this form is attached hereto as Exhibit A-2.
8

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 110 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 17
g. If necessary to maintain low jail population within the WCJ, utilize statutory authority contained in C.R.S. § 17-26-109 to grant time credits to sentenced prisoners.
(3) Ensure the following respecting intake/transition units within the WCJ: medically vulnerable inmates admitted to WCJ’s intake/transition units are housed in a cell within such unit alone and away from other inmates; if it is not possible to house a medically vulnerable inmate alone in a cell within an intake/transition unit due to the WCJ’s physical layout, population level, and classification needs, the inmate must be housed in a cell within an intake/transition unit with no more than one other inmate, which inmate must also be a medically vulnerable inmate, in accordance with cohorting practices the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) specifically outlines and endorses; and if despite this allowance, it still is not possible to house a medically vulnerable inmate either alone or with only one other medically vulnerable inmate in a cell within an intake/transition unit due to the WCJ’s then-existing physical layout, population level, and classification needs, and no other option is apparent, Detentions Division Deputies will contact their Shift Sergeant for guidance immediately, and this existing policy will be maintained subject to the WCSO’s maximum staffing ability.
(4) Ensure the following for all inmates: Continue the WCSO’s existing policy of ensuring, to the maximum extent possible considering the WCJ’s physical layout, population level, and classification needs, the following respecting general population units within the WCJ: medically vulnerable inmates are treated as a Special Management population in the WCJ; upon completing the intake/ transition unit quarantine protocol and transferring to WCJ general population, a medically vulnerable inmate is not housed in a cell with an inmate who is not medically vulnerable and an inmate who is not medically
9

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 110 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 17
vulnerable is not housed in a cell with a medically vulnerable inmate; and medically vulnerable inmates remain in current cohorted “family units” to the extent they are cohorted only with one other medically vulnerable inmate in their cell.
(5) Allow the maximum amount of daily out-of-cell time WCJ can provide inmates while following cohorting and social distancing protocols.
(6) Require WCJ Detentions Division staff to ensure enhanced sanitation in the WCJ housing units; prior to medically vulnerable inmates entering any WCJ common area, which includes bathrooms, an EPA-approved disinfectant spray which combats COVID-19 as certified by the EPA will be sprayed on all surfaces open for use by such inmates, allowing for recommended contact time for complete disinfection to occur before such inmates enter; medically vulnerable inmates will be encouraged to practice social distancing continuously (to supplement the existing placement of thick black gaffers tape throughout the WCJ for visual representation of six feet apart from person to person), to disinfect any commonly used equipment on their way out and their way in, and to increase their own cleaning practices to include frequent hand washing and personal sanitation; medically vulnerable inmates who willfully refuse to adhere to recommended practices to prevent the spread of COVID-19 despite such encouragements will be noted in the WCJ records management system; personal hygiene supplies and bottles of an EPA-approved disinfectant spray will remain available to all inmates, inclusive of medically vulnerable inmates, without cost; in the event the WCJ inmate population reaches a low enough threshold that “medically vulnerable” inmates can be further distanced from non-“medically vulnerable” inmates, then they shall be, while recognizing that limiting movement from one housing unit to another to ensure prevention of cross-contamination from one population to another
10

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 110 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 17
population is consistent with public health guidance in a correctional setting; WCJ will maintain increased supplies of bottles of an EPA-approved disinfectant spray and masks to ensure all inmates have access to both masks and such disinfecting spray at all times; when necessary and only in a medically-sound manner that does not aerosolize droplets that may contain COVID-19 or otherwise lead to increased spread of COVID-19, power washers may be used on water-resistant surfaces, when applicable, to enhance cleaning; when necessary, only Trustee inmates who are both properly trained in biohazard cleanup and outfitted with proper personal protective equipment will be utilized to clean up areas previously occupied by an inmate confirmed to have tested positive for COVID-19. WCJ shall provide increased professional cleaning services to augment the enhanced sanitation efforts of Detentions Division staff if warranted by the situation.
(7) Ensure that all inmates shall have access to at least two cloth masks or at least one disposable mask at all times. WCJ shall monitor mask usage by all inmates; all WCJ staff (and third-party contractors) shall be required to wear a face mask at all times when interacting in any manner with inmates, and WCJ shall monitor mask usage by such staff; WCJ shall provide reusable cloth masks to inmates who are not medically vulnerable and ensure such inmates are provided the opportunity to wash said cloth masks every three days; WCJ shall provide disposable masks to medically vulnerable inmates and such masks will be replaced in accordance with CDC guidelines and manufacturer recommendations, or sooner if said masks become soiled or damaged. WCJ will continue to provide a mask to all inmates who are released from the WCJ.
11

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 110 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 17
(8) Ensure medical monitoring for medically vulnerable inmates housed within the WCJ: qualified medical staff will perform four “daily checks” on medically vulnerable inmates consisting of temperature checks and full symptom screenings.
(9) Ensure that symptom screening shall be dictated, at minimum, by thencurrent CDC guidelines and will be according to the attached second updated screening protocol (attached as Exhibit A-3 to this Consent Decree).
(10) Provide testing for all inmates according to then-current CDC guidelines as soon as possible following the report of one or more symptoms for COVID-19 consistent with CDC screening questions, without imposing additional requirements beyond the CDC screening questions, although Defendant may make testing more frequently available. Testing shall be performed as soon as possible from the time of the report. When an inmate tests positive for COVID-19 or is designated by a health care professional as presumptive positive for COVID-19, the WCJ will follow current CDC criteria for testing, quarantine, and isolation. These criteria have changed since CDC guidelines for correctional facilities were originally issued and may continue to change as new data points are made available to and accounted for by the CDC.
(11) Continue implementation of the following protocol in both intake/transition units and general population units: an inmate in the WCJ who is symptomatic for or tests positive for COVID-19 is isolated in a medical isolation unit in the WCJ per current CDC criteria. These criteria have changed since CDC guidelines for correctional facilities were originally issued and may continue to change as new data points are made available to and accounted for by the CDC.
12

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 110 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 17
(12) Ensure that medical isolation is a non-punitive environment and inmates shall have access to personal items, such recreational materials which can be effectively sanitized, and time outside of their cell while in medical isolation;
(13) Continue to allow remote visitation for inmates with any visitor, including personal, jail-based behavioral, legal, or others; however, nothing in this agreement prohibits or discourages allowing for in-person visitation in compliance with CDC guidelines. Video visitation from the WCJ’s front lobby shall remain a free service.
(14) Provide informational updates to inmates housed within the WCJ, both via paper as appropriate and via video message, as to best practices on how to prevent the spread of COVID-19, which shall include, as part of the intake process, an initial viewing of a previously prepared video addressing best practices for preventing the spread of COVID-19;
(15) Furnish to the ACLU of Colorado, via email to Mark Silverstein at msilverstein@aclu-co.org and Nicole Loy at nloy@aclu-co.org, on or before 11:59:59 PM Mountain Time on Tuesday of every week, the following WCJ data for the lookback period which is defined as the previous Monday at 05:00:00 AM through Sunday at 05:00:01 AM, thus resulting in seven (7) days of reported data, at 05:00:00 AM each day of said lookback period:
a. Average daily inmate population as logged at 05:00:00 AM each day of the lookback period;
b. Average daily population of medically vulnerable inmates as logged at 05:00:00 AM each day of the lookback period;
c. Total number of medically vulnerable inmates identified during the intake screening process each day of the lookback period.
13

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 110 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 17
d. Daily count of inmates housed in medical isolation units within the WCJ for each day of the lookback period;
e. Total number of COVID-19 tests administered to inmates each day during the lookback period and results of those tests (positive, negative, inconclusive); and
f. Total number of inmates transferred to a hospital for care each day during the lookback period due to COVID-19. The procedures set forth above may be modified as necessary by further Order from the Court. In addition, as set forth in Section III.E.2 above, Defendant by and through his counsel shall furnish Mr. Silverstein with an identification of which inmates in the WCJ are classified as “medically vulnerable” pursuant to this Consent Decree, for a lookback period of the prior fourteen days defined as the two-weeks-previous Monday at 05:00:00 AM through the previous Sunday at 05:00:01 AM, thus resulting in fourteen (14) days of reported data, at 05:00:00 AM each day of said lookback period. Defendant shall furnish Mr. Silverstein with such identification every fourteen days, that is, with every other transmission of the data set forth in this paragraph which Defendant is furnishing to Mr. Silverstein on a weekly basis. Mr. Silverstein, for himself and on behalf of all counsel who entered an appearance for Plaintiffs or the Class or both in the Lawsuit, agrees such identification shall be used only by counsel acting on behalf of Plaintiffs or members of the Class and shall be used only for class counsel purposes. F. Payment of Certain Attorney Fees and Costs Attributable to Counsel for
U
Plaintiffs and the Class from Defendant By and Through the Weld County Board of County Commissioners
Within twenty-one (21) days from the date the Court enters this Order in its final form, Defendant shall cause to be paid $122,387.60 as reimbursement for Attorney
14

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 110 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 17
Fees and Costs. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and for and on behalf of the Class as is reflected in the aforementioned joint motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement, as updated by the parties’ joint supplement, agree that such payment is the full and final amount they are entitled to receive for Attorney Fees and Costs in this action for work performed through the date of this Consent Decree and Final Judgment, and unless Defendant is held in contempt of court for not abiding by the terms of this Consent Decree and Final Judgment, Plaintiffs and the Class will not seek any further Attorney Fees and Costs with respect to the Lawsuit. The Attorney Fees and Costs shall be paid by check made payable to the “ACLU of Colorado Foundation” and delivered to Mark Silverstein, Esq. Defendant shall not withhold any federal, state, or local taxes from the Attorney Fees and Costs, and an IRS Form 1099 will be issued to the ACLU of Colorado Foundation. G. Final Compromise, No Admissions
U
All Parties agree and acknowledge: this Consent Decree and Final Judgment constitutes a full and complete compromise of this Lawsuit; and no past or present wrongdoing on the part of anyone will be implied by such commitment or by the negotiations surrounding this Consent Decree and Final Judgment. The terms and conditions of this Consent Decree and Final Judgment do not constitute and will not be asserted to constitute any admission respecting any facts or liability for claims whatsoever with regard to any aspects of this Lawsuit. H. Binding Effect
U
This Consent Decree will inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, all successors, assigns, personal representatives, and heirs (as applicable) of Plaintiffs, of
15

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 110 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 17
the Class as is reflected in the aforementioned joint motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement, as updated by the parties’ joint supplement, and of Defendant. I. Headings and Recitals
U
The headings used in this Consent Decree and Final Judgment are for the convenience of the Parties only. As such, these headings will not have any legal effect whatsoever, or in any other way modify the meaning or interpretation of this Consent Decree and Final Judgment. J. Modification of this Consent Decree and Final Judgment
U
No provision of this Consent Decree and Final Judgment may be modified except by Order of the Court. K. Need-Narrowness-Intrusiveness Findings
U
The Court finds and concludes this Consent Decree and Final Judgment: has no adverse effect on public safety; does not have more than a minimal adverse effect on the operation of the criminal justice system; is narrowly drawn; extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of a Federal right; and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1).

__2_/1_6_/_2_0_2_1____ Date

_______________________________ Chief United States District Judge

16

Case 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC Document 110 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 17