IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ANTHONY MAYS, Individually and on behalf )

of a class of similarly situated persons; and )

JUDIA JACKSON, as next friend of KENNETH )

FOSTER, Individually and on behalf of a class )

of similarly situated persons, )

)

Plaintiffs-Petitioners, )

)

v. ) Case No. 20 C 2134

)

THOMAS J. DART, Sheriff of Cook )

County, )

)

Defendant-Respondent. ) Hon. Robert W. Gettleman, Judge

AGREED ORDER

The Court has received the Parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Order Extending the 

Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 187). Having considered the Joint Motion and the record in this 

case, the Court makes the following findings:

1. Plaintiffs brought this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for injunctive relief on 

behalf of a class of individuals detained at the Cook County Jail regarding the Sheriff’s response 

to the coronavirus. Dkt. 1. In response, the Sheriff maintained that his actions have been 

objectively reasonable. Dkt. 29, 41, 62.

2. On April 27, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary 

injunction in part, directing the Sheriff to take certain actions regarding testing, social distancing, 

hygiene materials, sanitation, and facemasks. Dkt. 73. In granting the motion, the Court found 

that the injunctive relief it had ordered satisfied the criteria for preliminary injunction required 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1). Dkt. 73 at 84.

Case: 1:20-cv-02134 Document #: 189 Filed: 12/10/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:3911
2

3. Following the Sheriff’s appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed and vacated the 

portion of the preliminary injunction precluding double celling and group housing, and affirmed 

the remainder of the preliminary injunction ruling. Mays v. Dart, 974 F.3d 810 (7th Cir. 2020). 

On October 4, 2021, the Supreme Court denied the Sheriff’s petition for a writ of certiorari 

regarding that appeal. Dart v. Mays, No. 20-990.

4. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) provides that a preliminary 

injunction will expire 90 days after its entry absent further action by the Court. See 18 U.S.C. § 

3626(a)(2). The Court previously extended the preliminary injunction, pursuant to the parties’ 

joint request, on July 9, 2020 and January 19, 2021. Dkt. 141; Dkt. 167.

5. The Court finds that it has authority and jurisdiction to extend the duration of the 

preliminary injunction. 

6. Having considered the Joint Motion and the record in this case, the Court finds 

that the Court’s April 27, 2020 preliminary injunction order, as modified by the Seventh 

Circuit’s September 8, 2020 order on appeal, should be extended through February 18, 2022. 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1), the Court finds that this extension is narrowly drawn, 

extends no further than necessary, and is the least intrusive means necessary to address the 

constitutional violations alleged in this case. The Court therefore ORDERS that its April 27, 

2020 preliminary injunction order be so extended.

Dated: _December 10, 2021_____

United States District Court Judge

Robert W. Gettleman

Case: 1:20-cv-02134 Document #: 189 Filed: 12/10/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:3912