457 F.Supp.3d 1008
D. Colo.2020Background:
- Uto Thomas Essien, a 55‑year‑old Nigerian national detained by ICE at the Aurora Contract Detention Facility in Colorado without bond after release from state prison; filed a §2241 habeas petition and sought immediate release to his sister’s home.
- Essien has multiple COVID‑19 risk factors: age 55, long‑standing hypertension, borderline diabetes, BMI ≈34.85, recurrent pneumonia history, and is Black.
- The Facility had no confirmed detainee COVID‑19 cases but five staff tested positive; detainees live in congregate conditions (small cells, shared showers/toilets), detainees report limited mask access and many staff not wearing masks.
- ICE uses screening (14‑day annex quarantine for new detainees, staff temperature/questionnaires), but the court found these measures inadequate to prevent asymptomatic transmission.
- ICE denied Essien humanitarian parole; the court converted Essien’s TRO into a preliminary injunction ordering release to his sister’s 3,000‑sq‑ft home under home detention with location monitoring, passport surrender, and limits on leaving except for medical care or court.
- The court found Essien likely to succeed on the merits of a Fifth Amendment due‑process claim that detention had become punitive in effect given the elevated COVID‑19 risk, and that irreparable harm, balance of harms, and public interest favored release.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper remedy: habeas (§2241) vs. conditions claim/Bivens | Essien: release is the only effective remedy because congregate detention itself makes infection inevitable | ICE: claim attacks conditions, so plaintiff must pursue Bivens/conditions remedy, not habeas | Court: Preiser controls—seeking immediate release is properly brought as habeas under §2241 |
| Whether detention is "punitive" (Fifth Amendment) in light of COVID‑19 | Essien: facility layout/operations make detention effectively punitive because he cannot avoid likely infection and severe illness | ICE: detention is civil and nondisciplinary; general detention purposes justify custody | Court: Likely success — detention bears no reasonable relation to a legitimate purpose under current conditions and is punitive in effect (objective standard) |
| Irreparable harm: likelihood of contracting severe COVID‑19 at facility vs. home | Essien: high risk the virus will enter facility, high infection risk in congregate housing, and his comorbidities make severe disease or death likely; sister's home materially safer | ICE: most infections are mild; Essien cannot show likelihood of severe harm | Court: Essien showed likelihood of irreparable harm and that sister’s home materially reduces risk |
| Balance of harms & public interest (including criminal history and supervision) | Essien: nonviolent criminal history; release under strict home detention and monitoring protects public and health interests | ICE: detention serves immigration enforcement and public safety; release contrary to public interest given criminal history | Court: Balance and public interest favor release under conditions (home detention, monitoring, passport surrender, limited movement) |
Key Cases Cited:
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary‑injunction standard: likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest)
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (habeas is sole federal remedy for immediate release from custody)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015) (objective standard for due‑process claims by pretrial detainees; no subjective‑intent inquiry required)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (immigration detention is civil and must be nonpunitive under Due Process)
- Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v. Jewell, 839 F.3d 1276 (10th Cir. 2016) (rejecting relaxed preliminary‑injunction tests; defines framework for disfavored injunctions)
- Free the Nipple‑Fort Collins v. City of Fort Collins, 916 F.3d 792 (10th Cir. 2019) (defines "disfavored" injunction characteristics and heavier burdens)
- McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Commission, 115 F.3d 809 (10th Cir. 1997) (distinguishing habeas challenges to custody from conditions‑of‑confinement claims)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognizing a federal cause of action for certain constitutional violations by federal actors)