1030311\307326773.v1

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 PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

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 vacating the social distancing 

requirements in housing areas, and to stay all discovery in the District Court pending the resolution

of Defendant Dart’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, 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 #: 161 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:3848
2 1030311\307326773.v1

1. Plaintiffs 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 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 maintain 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 was heard by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on an expedited basis. 

6. On September 8, 2020, the Seventh Circuit issued its decision reversing in part and 

vacating the portion of the preliminary injunction precluding double celling and group housing

Case: 1:20-cv-02134 Document #: 161 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:3849
3 1030311\307326773.v1

based on the district court’s failure to consider the Sheriff’s conduct in its totality. App. Dkt. 65. 

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the remainder of the preliminary injunction ruling. Id.

7. Defendant Dart intends to seek certiorari from the United States Supreme Court 

with regard to the Seventh Circuit’s decision. Defendant Dart agrees that he will file the petition 

for certiorari no later than January 15, 2021. The Sheriff joins this Motion 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 the appellate court.

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 

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 or vacate the preliminary injunction. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d). However, to date, plaintiffs have not presented the court with any claim that 

the preliminary injunction has been violated and, as such, there are no such claims pending before 

the court.

Case: 1:20-cv-02134 Document #: 161 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:3850
4 1030311\307326773.v1

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

maintain the status quo, the duration of the preliminary injunction entered by this Court on April 

27, 2020, Dkt. 74, subject to the appellate court’s September 8, 2020 Order, should be extended

until the resolution of Defendant Dart’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, subject to further 

extension or modification. The parties expressly agree that the Seventh Circuit’s September 8, 

2020 Order vacating the social distancing in housing requirement has eliminated 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 

resolution of Defendant Dart’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. 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 potentially decided by the 

United States Supreme Court.

12. In the interest of judicial economy, Defendant Dart agrees to provide Plaintiffs the 

following documentation during the pendency of this stay of discovery:

a. Once a week, a tier population report, provided pursuant to the protective orders 

entered in this matter (Dkt. 125; 126).

b. Once a week, the number of tests administered to detainees within the Cook County 

Jail; the number of positive detainees; and the test positivity rate for all tests 

administered by Cermak Health Services, provided pursuant to the protective 

orders entered in this matter (Dkt. 125; 126). Defendant Dart does not have direct 

access to this data because all tests are administered by Cermak Health Services. 

Defendant Dart will provide this data as long as Cermak Health Services provides 

Case: 1:20-cv-02134 Document #: 161 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:3851
5 1030311\307326773.v1

the underlying data to the Sheriff’s Office. The positivity rate is calculated by the 

Sheriff’s Office based on the raw testing data provided to the Office by Cermak 

Health Services.

c. Once a week, the number of surgical masks the Sheriff’s Office currently has on 

hand and how many surgical masks have been distributed that week. 

d. Upon the request of counsel for the Plaintiffs, which may be made at 10 day 

intervals, the Sheriff will promptly provide Plaintiffs with the recorded surveillance 

feeds of all video cameras covering a tier or single living unit of a dorm identified 

by random means for up to two hours (hours to be identified by Plaintiff) on the 

date immediately prior to the date of the request. The parties agree that the video 

provided pursuant to any such request may be designated confidential/attorneys’ 

eyes only pursuant to the protective order.

e. If the COVID-19 data publicly available on cookcountysheriff.org as of November 

30, 2020, ceases to be available publicly, upon request Defendant Dart will provide 

the information currently available on that website to Plaintiffs daily, pursuant to 

the protective orders entered in this matter (Dkt. 125; 126). This information 

includes: the number of detainees who are currently positive for COVID-19; the 

number of detainees who are no longer positive and are currently recovering from 

COVID-19; and the number of COVID-19 hospitalizations.

f. Without specific request by Plaintiff’s counsel, the Sheriff will inform counsel for 

the Plaintiffs of the plan for distribution of coronavirus vaccines to staff and 

detainees within the Jail immediately after such plan is formulated. Thereafter, 

Case: 1:20-cv-02134 Document #: 161 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:3852
6 1030311\307326773.v1

upon request of counsel for the Plaintiff, the Sheriff will provide Plaintiff with 

updates as to the execution of the plan.

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

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

subject to the appellate court’s September 8, 2020 Order, and staying all discovery, pending 

resolution of Defendant Dart’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.

Case: 1:20-cv-02134 Document #: 161 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:3853
7 1030311\307326773.v1

Respectfully submitted:

PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL

/s/ Sarah C. 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/ James M. Lydon _

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

Case: 1:20-cv-02134 Document #: 161 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:3854