DiMartino et al. v. Sage

A group of incarcerated men suffering from untreated or under-treated cancer filed pro se habeas corpus petitions seeking, among other things, release to home confinement in order to be treated by their own doctors. They alleged that they had been subject to unconstitutional conditions of confinement because prison officials were deliberately indifferent to their serious medical conditions in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

In dismissing their claims, the district court relied on the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s (PLRA) prospective relief provisions — a set of rules that apply to the very end of an injunctive case (the remedy stage), not the very beginning (the motion to dismiss stage).

The MacArthur Justice Center (MJC) represents this group of incarcerated men in their appeal in the Second Circuit, arguing that the District Court adopted an overly restrictive reading of the relief the men sought, incorrectly concluding that they sought release to home confinement to the exclusion of every other potential remedy. MJC also argued that the District Court erred by relying at the dismissal phase on requirements that the PLRA imposes on the remedy phase of an injunctive case.

The brief was supported by an amicus brief that elaborated on the systemic failures of the medical department at group of men’s prison; the need to construe the complaint liberally because of the difficulties that people incarcerated at that prison have in conducting legal research; and a settlement agreement that the Bureau of Prisons previously argued barred the men’s claim.