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. 1:20-cv-2134

)

THOMAS J. DART, Sheriff of Cook )

County, )

)

Defendant-Respondent. ) The Hon. Robert Gettleman

PARTIES’ JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND THE PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION AND TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING APPEAL

Plaintiff, ANTHONY MAYS, Individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated 

persons, and Plaintiff JUDIA JACKSON, as next friend of KENNETH FOSTER, Individually and 

on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by and through their 

attorneys at the RODERICK AND SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER, LOEVY & 

LOEVY, CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS, and WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP; and Defendant THOMAS 

J. DART (“Defendant”), by and through his attorneys at HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP, 

hereby jointly move this Court to extend the duration of its Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 74), 

subject to the order of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals staying social distancing requirements 

in housing areas, and to stay all discovery in the District Court until such time as the district court 

can take proper action following the return of the mandate to the district court from the Seventh 

Circuit, in the interest of efficiency and preserving the status quo. In support of their motion, the 

parties state as follows:

Case: 1:20-cv-02134 Document #: 137 Filed: 07/07/20 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:3218
2

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

on behalf of a class of all individuals detained at the Cook County Jail regarding the actions taken 

by the Sheriff in response to the coronavirus. Dkt. 1. In response, the Sheriff has maintained that 

his actions have been objectively reasonable. Dkt. 29, 41, 62.

2. On April 9, 2020, the Court entered a temporary restraining order, directing the 

Sheriff to establish and implement policies regarding coronavirus testing, sanitation, and hygiene; 

to enforce social distancing during the new detainee intake process (and to suspend the use of 

bullpens at intake); and to provide masks to quarantined detainees. Dkt. 47 at 33-36 (detailing the 

contents of the required policies).

3. On April 14, 2020, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. Dkt. 55. On April 

23, 2020, the Court conducted an evidentiary hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion, and both sides 

presented additional evidence and live testimony. Dkt. 71. 

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

in part. Dkt. 73. The Court entered a preliminary injunction directing the Sheriff to take certain 

actions regarding testing, social distancing, hygiene materials, sanitation, and facemasks. Dkt. 74. 

The Court found that its preliminary injunction was “narrowly drawn, extends no further than 

necessary, and is the least intrusive means necessary to address” the constitutional violation, the 

findings required under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1). See Dkt. 73 at 82. 

5. On May 11, 2020, the Sheriff filed a notice of appeal from the preliminary 

injunction order, which remains pending, and is currently being heard by the Seventh Circuit Court 

of Appeals on an expedited basis. The Sheriff’s opening appellate brief is due July 10; Plaintiffs’ 

response brief is due July 24; and the Sheriff’s reply brief is due July 31. Oral argument has been 

scheduled for August 18, 2020. Mays v. Dart, 20-1792, Dkt. 29. The Sheriff joins this Motion 

Case: 1:20-cv-02134 Document #: 137 Filed: 07/07/20 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:3219
3

without waiver of his arguments regarding the propriety of the Court’s findings and the entry of 

the preliminary injunction as set forth throughout the proceedings before this Court and now in the 

appellate court. 

6. On June 19, 2020, the appellate court stayed that part of the injunction requiring 

the Sheriff to establish and put into effect a policy “precluding group housing or double celling of 

detained persons.” Dkt. 127.

7. Because the Court did not set an end date for the preliminary injunction, see Dkt. 

73 at 87, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) provides that the preliminary injunction will 

automatically expire 90 days after its entry—i.e., by July 27, 2020—absent further action by the 

Court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

8. The parties agree that the Court previously made the findings required under 

subsection (a)(1) of the PLRA. Id. § 3626(a)(1). The parties further agree that this Court has 

authority and jurisdiction to extend the duration of the preliminary injunction pending resolution 

of the appeal. See, e.g., Yates v. Collier, 677 F. App’x 915, 918 (5th Cir. 2017) (finding that 

plaintiffs could have sought an extension of the preliminary injunction beyond the PLRA’s 90-day 

expiration date in order to permit appellate review); Ga. Advocacy Office v. Jackson, 2020 WL 

1883877, at *4-5 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 26, 2020) (finding that 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2)’s requirement to 

make the order final “refers to finalizing the preliminary injunction by including the required 

findings so that the preliminary injunction may be extended beyond the 90-day period during the 

pendency of the action or until further order of the court”).

9. The parties agree that should the circumstances warrant, the district court has 

jurisdiction to entertain a request by either party to modify the preliminary injunction. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 62(d).

Case: 1:20-cv-02134 Document #: 137 Filed: 07/07/20 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:3220
4

10. The parties agree that, in the interests of judicial economy and in an effort to 

maintain the status quo for the duration of the appeal, the duration of the preliminary injunction 

entered by this Court on April 27, 2020, Dkt. 74, subject to the appellate court’s partial stay order, 

should be extended until such time as the district court can take proper action following the return 

of the mandate to the district court from the Seventh Circuit, subject to further extension or 

modification. The parties expressly agree that the Seventh Circuit’s order staying enforcement of 

the injunction’s requirement to establish and implement a policy precluding group housing or 

double celling of detainees remains in effect as to that provision of the Preliminary Injunction if 

the Court grants the parties’ joint motion. Dkt. 127.

11. The parties also agree that discovery in the underlying case should be stayed until 

the pending appeal in this case is decided. Such an order, entered concurrently with the extension 

of the duration of the preliminary injunction, will ensure that the status quo is preserved and will 

further judicial economy by relieving the parties and the Court of the substantial burden of 

conducting discovery before significant legal issues are decided by the Seventh Circuit.

12. Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Sheriff have consulted with counsel for the 

Intervenors, who reported that Intervenors, International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 700, 

have no objection to this motion or the relief sought.

Wherefore, the parties jointly request that this Court enter an order extending the duration 

of the Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 74), subject to further extension or modification and the 

appellate court’s partial stay order, and staying all discovery, until such time as the district court 

can take proper action following the return of the mandate to the district court from the Seventh 

Circuit.

Case: 1:20-cv-02134 Document #: 137 Filed: 07/07/20 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:3221
5

Respectfully submitted:

PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL

/s/ Sarah Grady _

Sarah C. Grady 

Stephen H. Weil 

LOEVY & LOEVY

311 N. Aberdeen Street, #3

Chicago, IL 60607

Tel: 312-243-5900 

Fax:312-243-5902

weil@loevy.com

sarah@loevy.com

Locke E. Bowman 

Alexa A. Van Brunt

MacArthur Justice Center 

Northwestern Pritzker School of Law

375 E. Chicago Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611 

Tel: 312-503-0884

l-bowman@law.northwestern.edu

a-vanbrunt@law.northwestern.edu

Charles Gerstein 

Alec Karakatsanis 

Civil Rights Corps

1601 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20009 

charlie@civilrightscorps.org

alec@civilrightscorps.org

Tel: 202-894-6128

Steve Grimes

Thomas F. McAndrew 

Winston & Strawn LLP 

35 W. Wacker Drive 

Chicago, IL 60601-9703

Tel: (312) 558-8317

SGrimes@winston.com

TMcAndrew@winston.com

DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL

/s/ Robert Shannon _

James Matthias Lydon

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

151 N. Franklin Street

Suite 2500

Chicago, IL 60606

(312) 704-3000

Email: jlydon@hinshawlaw.com

Robert Thomas Shannon

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

151 N. Franklin Street

Suite 2500

Chicago, IL 60606

(312) 704-3901

Email: rshannon@hinshawlaw.com

Adam Robert Vaught

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

151 N. Franklin Street

Suite 2500

Chicago, IL 60606

(312) 704-3584

Email: avaught@hinshawlaw.com

Gretchen Harris Sperry

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

151 N. Franklin Street

Suite 2500

Chicago, IL 60606

(312)704-3521

Email: gsperry@hinshawlaw.com

Lari Ann Dierks

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

151 N. Franklin Street

Suite 2500

Chicago, IL 60606

(312) 704-3254

Email: ldierks@hinshawlaw.com

Case: 1:20-cv-02134 Document #: 137 Filed: 07/07/20 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:3222
6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Sarah Grady, an attorney, hereby certify that on July 7, 2020, I caused a copy of the 

foregoing Parties’ Joint Motion to Extend the Preliminary Injunction and Stay Discovery to be 

filed via CM/ECF, which effected service on all counsel of record.

/s/ Sarah Grady

Sarah Grady

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case: 1:20-cv-02134 Document #: 137 Filed: 07/07/20 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:3223