An issue of particular pertinence, discussed in Kalvis Golde’s article, is the use of habeas corpus petitions to challenge conditions of confinement in prisons. The debate centers on whether a habeas petition can be used to challenge prison conditions – a question left open by the Supreme Court – with different courts of appeals taking diverging stances.
One central example of this issue is the case of Bruce Sands, an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution in Lompoc, California. Sands had been serving an 11-year sentence for fraud and money laundering since 2016. As COVID-19 spread through the facility, he attempted to contest the prison’s pandemic response, alleging that officials were disregarding masking and distancing guidelines, hence putting inmates at risk.
Adding to the issue was the allegation that Sands was confined with others infected with the virus. He claimed that eligible individuals were not moved to home confinement, contributing to an increased prison population. Sands contested these conditions through a petition for habeas corpus, citing his obesity and high blood pressure as factors that exposed him to an elevated risk of contracting COVID-19 – a risk seen as a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
In a potentially significant setback, the bid was dismissed by a federal district court in California, which ruled it had no authority to hear his claim, given that Sands was challenging the conditions, not the “fact or duration,” of his custody.
The case’s importance was underscored as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling. The Appeals Court position holds that a habeas petition is an incorrect tool for a claim of unlawful prison conditions. Under existing law in the 9th Circuit, imprisoned individuals are permitted to file habeas petitions challenging the conditions of a sentence’s execution, but not the conditions of their confinement.
In Sands v. Bradley, Sands seeks a Supreme Court review, arguing that habeas corpus petitions can, indeed, be used to challenge an inmate’s conditions of confinement. He asserts that the issue needs resolution given that no possible improvements to the conditions at Lompoc, barring his release, could prevent the injuries he alleges.
The case brings into focus the broader issue of the application of 28 U.S.C. § 2241 whether federal courts have jurisdiction over a habeas corpus petition alleging unconstitutional incarceration conditions requiring release, either generally or at the very least, when the prisoner is appealing for a release from custody.