California Supreme Court,
Civil Litigation
Jul. 17, 2020
Sacramento judge told to resolve issue of virus in lockups
California Chief Justice Tani G. Sakauye — writing for the majority — rejected the writ but directed Superior Court Judge David F. De Alba to “use all the tools available to it to achieve prompt and effective resolution of the matter.”
The state Supreme Court has again steered clear of a writ petition asking it to order measures to protect prisoners from the COVID-19 virus but ordered a Sacramento County judge to hold expedited proceedings to address the issue.
In an order released Wednesday, California Chief Justice Tani G. Sakauye -- writing for the majority -- rejected the writ but directed Superior Court Judge David F. De Alba to "use all the tools available to it to achieve prompt and effective resolution of the matter." Marshall v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, S263043 (State S. Ct., petition filed June 29, 2020).
This is the fourth time the state Supreme Court has rejected a petition asking it to take up a case involving inmates suing over the health risks of the coronavirus.
Justice Goodwin H. Liu dissented from the decision not to consider the prisoners' case, arguing the court should address the health emergency itself after denying earlier inmate petitions without prejudice.
Liu said the delays in superior court argued for the high court's involvement seven weeks after petitioners filed on May 26.
"The lawful treatment of inmates during this pandemic is not an issue that any court would relish taking on," he wrote. "But petitioners have come to this court on the reasonable expectation that the buck stops with us. Because petitioners have made a prima facie case for relief, this court should issue an order to show cause, appoint a special master, and set this matter for expedited resolution."
Liu added, "This petition is categorically different from other matters confronting our courts. It concerns the underlying condition at the root of many of the other problems: the spread of COVID-19 itself."
But the justice, for the second time, cast a lone dissent.
David S. Ettinger, a partner with Horvitz & Levy LLP who has followed the petitions, said justices appear to agree the issue is serious but the majority believes fact-finding determinations are best handled by superior court judges.
"The only disagreement is the means of how to address that issue," he added.
Sacramento County Public Defender Steven M. Garrett praised the decision in a prepared statement Thursday even though the state Supreme Court isn't accepting the case. "We look forward to presenting our evidence and having a judge decide these important issues." he wrote. "The jail is a tinderbox waiting to burn with COVID."
In court papers, Deputy County Counsel James R. Wood argued against the release of prisoners, as requested by petitioners, because they have not established a violation of their rights under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
State Attorney General Xavier Becerra had asked the court to deny the petition. His office declined comment Thursday.
Last month, the high court transferred a writ petition filed by Los Angeles County prisoners to the 2nd District Court of Appeal, which referred the matter back to superior court. Expedited discovery was ordered in the case.
In May, the high court denied a petition by defense attorneys representing inmates statewide, again referring the dispute to superior court. National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al., v. Newsom et al., S261827 (State S. Ct., filed May 4, 2020).
In a fourth case, the state Supreme Court denied review of a petition seeking to stop California from transferring prisoners to federal immigration detention facilities, citing COVID-19 risks. Liu dissented in that case as well.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar defended the court's Wednesday decision in Marshall.
"While the court's order today dissolves the trial court stay and contemplates the expeditious resolution of this case in that court, I don't see it as a mere affirmation of the status quo," Cuellar wrote. He pointed out that Wednesday's order allows petitioners to update the high court by July 31.
"The challenges facing our jails and our trial courts are as enormous as they are consequential," Cuellar wrote. "But when lawyers and courts unduly delay resolution of credible claims about an unfolding disaster, they court disaster."
Cantil-Sakauye's order mentions the possibility petitioners could get relief under a decision about money bail. But she wrote that decision is at least two months away, and Ettinger said no oral argument has been scheduled.
Craig Anderson
craig_anderson@dailyjournal.com
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com
