456 F.Supp.3d 538
S.D.N.Y.2020Background
- Four ICE civil detainees (Ferreyra, Denizard, Perdomo Perdomo, Villiers) were held in Bergen, Essex, and Orange County jails where COVID-19 cases had been identified; each has underlying medical conditions increasing COVID-19 risk.
- Petitioners filed a § 2241 habeas petition and moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) seeking immediate release (with conditions) and an injunction barring ICE from re-arresting them during proceedings.
- The Government opposed severance, challenged venue and party defendants, and submitted declarations describing mitigation steps taken by ICE and the jails.
- The Court held a telephonic hearing and evaluated severance, venue/proper respondent, irreparable harm, likelihood of success on due-process (deliberate indifference) claims, and public interest.
- Rulings: the Court denied severance, found ICE Field Office Director Decker (not DHS Secretary Wolf) is the proper respondent in this district, granted the TRO ordering release subject to conditions, and restrained ICE from re-arresting the Petitioners for civil immigration detention pending further order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Severance of multi‑party petition | Multi‑party habeas is appropriate given common legal/factual claims and judicial economy | Respondents urged severance into individual petitions | Denied — multi‑party habeas allowed given common claims and urgency |
| Proper respondent / venue | Decker (ICE NY Field Office) is the federal official with immediate control; venue in SDNY is proper | Wardens or NJ district are proper custodians/venue; Wolf named as DHS Secretary | Decker is proper respondent in SDNY; Wolf (remote supervisor) dismissed |
| TRO — irreparable harm (health & constitutional) | Continued detention amid COVID‑19 in jails with outbreaks + petitioners’ comorbidities create imminent, irreparable risk and due‑process violation (deliberate indifference) | Facilities implemented mitigation (screening, masks, cohorting, limited intake) and have reduced risk | Petitioners showed irreparable harm and likelihood of success on due‑process (deliberate indifference) claims; TRO warranted |
| Relief / conditions | Release with court‑imposed conditions (electronic/ankle monitoring, supervised release) protects petitioners and public health | Continued detention authorized by immigration statutes; release risks flight/public safety | TRO ordered release subject to conditions; ICE barred from re‑arresting petitioners for civil immigration detention absent court permission |
Key Cases Cited
- United States ex rel. Sero v. Preiser, 506 F.2d 1115 (2d Cir. 1974) (courts may permit multi‑party habeas procedures to promote judicial economy)
- Bertrand v. Sava, 684 F.2d 204 (2d Cir. 1982) (district court may certify habeas classes where appropriate)
- Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004) (proper habeas respondent is the official with immediate custody/control)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (due process protections apply to aliens in the U.S.)
- Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993) (exposure to a serious communicable disease can constitute constitutional violation even without present symptoms)
- Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2017) (standard for detainee claim of deliberate indifference to medical needs)
- Phelps v. Kapnolas, 308 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2002) (conditions posing unreasonable risk of future serious damage satisfy constitutional claim)
- Mapp v. Reno, 241 F.3d 221 (2d Cir. 2001) (district courts have inherent authority to admit habeas petitioners to bail under extraordinary circumstances)
- Friends of the E. Hampton Airport, Inc. v. Town of E. Hampton, 841 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2016) (same standard applies to TROs and preliminary injunctions when government action is involved)