GODOY LOPEZ v. DECKER
2:20-cv-05367
| D.N.J. | Apr 30, 2020Background
- Four ICE immigration detainees (Elmer R.M., Everod R., Bairon G.M., Erlin P.M.) held at Hudson County Correctional Facility (HCCC) and Bergen County Jail sought a TRO/preliminary injunction for release during the COVID-19 pandemic; petition originally filed in SDNY and transferred to D.N.J.
- Petitioners allege symptoms or positive COVID-19 tests (Erlin and Everod later tested positive); they claim detention conditions and facility responses place them at substantial risk and amount to unconstitutional punishment under the Fifth Amendment.
- Facilities submitted declarations describing COVID-19 mitigation measures: screening/intake changes, testing, isolation and cohorting, increased medical staffing, enhanced cleaning, suspension of visitation, and provision of hygiene supplies.
- The Court held a telephonic hearing and reviewed medical records and expert commentary; some detainees were released during litigation and some staff/inmates at the facilities had tested positive.
- The Court denied the TRO: it found Petitioners failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits (no Fifth Amendment punishment shown and, for positive detainees, no established unconstitutional inadequacy of care), while remaining available to intervene if care becomes constitutionally inadequate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether detention conditions amid COVID-19 constitute unconstitutional punishment under the Fifth Amendment (warranting release) | Conditions and facility practices endanger detainees; absence of adequate prevention, testing, and care | Facilities have adopted CDC-aligned measures; detention serves legitimate government interest (flight risk/public safety) | Denied — Petitioners failed to show likelihood of success that conditions are punishment not rationally related to detention objectives |
| Whether detainees who tested positive (Erlin, Everod) must be released | Positive test justifies release to secure safety and care | Release could risk public health; positive detainees are isolated and medically monitored | Denied — Court treats positive cases as inquiry into adequacy of care; record shows monitoring/isolation and no constitutional violation shown, but court remains ready to act if care lapses |
| Whether petitioners’ age/medical vulnerability (e.g., Elmer, Bairon) justifies release | Claimants present symptoms/possible risk factors (alleged obesity, smoking) | Medical records do not document CDC-listed high-risk conditions; petitioners are young and records show ongoing care | Denied — Insufficient evidence of heightened vulnerability to overcome government interests |
| Whether TRO/preliminary-injunction standard is met (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of harms, public interest) | Pandemic creates irreparable harm and public interest favors release | Government interest and facility mitigation reduce need for injunctive relief; plaintiffs lack a high probability on merits | Denied — plaintiffs did not satisfy the required likelihood-of-success prong; other factors did not favor injunctive relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Wolfish, [citation="441 U.S. 520"] (recognizing due-process framework for pretrial/civil detainee conditions)
- E.D. v. Sharkey, [citation="928 F.3d 299"] (3d Cir.) (civil immigration detainees entitled to same due-process protections as pretrial detainees)
- Hubbard v. Taylor, [citation="538 F.3d 229"] (3d Cir.) (test for whether conditions constitute punishment; consider totality)
- Landano v. Rafferty, [citation="970 F.2d 1230"] (3d Cir.) (extraordinary nature of release pending habeas; stringent standard)
- Estelle v. Gamble, [citation="429 U.S. 97"] (deliberate indifference standard for serious medical needs)
- Farmer v. Brennan, [citation="511 U.S. 825"] (deliberate indifference requires recklessness to a substantial risk of serious harm)
- Natale v. Camden Cnty. Corr. Facility, [citation="318 F.3d 575"] (3d Cir.) (application of deliberate indifference in correctional medical care)
- New Jersey Retail Merchants Ass'n v. Sidamon-Eristoff, [citation="669 F.3d 374"] (3d Cir.) (factors governing preliminary injunctions)