Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 103
the class. Id. In contrast, the Court found that the sub-class members failed to meet
their burden at this juncture to establish that any inmate exhausted remedies prior to
filing the lawsuit, or that the group of inmates who were forced to pay for medical care
when free treatment could have been given by the Indian Health Service was sufficiently
numerous. Id. at 13-14. Additionally, the court relied on Wal-Mart to limit the conditions
class to current and future inmates to prevent mootness and standing arguments for
claimants to pursue injunctive and declaratory relief. Id. at 18. Finally, the court held that
commonality and typicality were satisfied for the conditions class, since the questions of
law and fact related to whether the conditions at the jail were unconstitutional. Id. at 2021.
In Howard, et al. v. Williams, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197094 (W.D. Penn. Oct. 31, 2022),
the court also granted class certification to a group of inmates alleging that the
defendants’ policies and procedures violated constitutional rights, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and other statutory and legal requirements, and
placed a class of mentally-compromise inmates at increased risk of harm. The class
was defined as those inmates currently or in the future incarcerated in the defendants’
jail who have or in the future will have a mental health diagnosis. Id. at *2. The court
focused on the allegations regarding the existence and constitutionality of a uniform
policy governing certain inmates’ confinement to satisfy Rule 23(a), and also opined that
the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged their entitlement to class-based injunctive relief under
Rule 23(b)(2) since there was a common question of whether the defendants acted on
grounds generally applicable to the class so as to make injunctive relief appropriate. Id.
at *4. In granting class certification, though, the court revised the proposed class
definition to eliminate merits-based factual findings that were unnecessary for class
certification and premature at this stage of the litigation. Id. at *5.
Not all prisoner class actions met with success in 2022 for class certification purposes.
For example, in Franklin, et al. v. Middlesex Water Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192333
(D.N.J. Oct. 21, 2022), the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, as
well as a request for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. The
plaintiffs were a group of state prisoners alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for civil
rights violations based on the defendant Middlesex Water Company allowing
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) to enter the water system which, if ingested in excess of
certain levels, can cause issues including problems with cholesterol levels and the liver,
kidney and immune system, among others. Id. at *3. The plaintiffs asserted that the
defendants were aware of PFOA levels in excess of the recommended maximum
contaminant level, failed to warn the inmates, the plaintiffs drank the water, and
subsequently they were diagnosed with a gastrointestinal bacterial infection.
Id. Regarding class certification, the court found that Rule 23(a)(4)’s requirement that
representatives adequately protect the interests of the class was not met since the
representatives were pro se litigants without legal training, and also failed to establish
they could meet the required representation needs while confined in prison. Id. For
these reasons, the court denied class certification, and found that the motions for a
preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order were moot. Id. at *13.
102
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
