469 F.Supp.3d 767
E.D. Mich.2020Background:
- Six medically vulnerable ICE civil detainees at Calhoun County Correctional Facility (ages/conditions include asthma, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, hypertension, tuberculosis, obesity) moved for emergency injunctive relief seeking release because of COVID-19 risk.
- Plaintiffs alleged facility conditions (dormitory-style housing, bunkbeds, communal meals, frequent movement) and implementation failures (limited/voluntary testing, lack of consistent mask/soap use, quarantine breaches) make adequate social distancing and infection control impossible.
- Defendants relied on ICE/CDC-based precautions, mandatory quarantine for new entrants, some testing (Michigan National Guard sample), and reduced population; a small outbreak occurred (six detainees tested positive).
- The court treated the request as a preliminary injunction, found continued detention created a high risk of irreparable injury (health/death and constitutional deprivation), and concluded plaintiffs likely to succeed on their Fifth Amendment substantive due process claim.
- The court ordered immediate release of Waad Barash, Lench Krcoska, Sergio Perez Pavon, Yohandry Ley Santana, Johanna Whernman, and William Whernman subject to 14-day home quarantine, compliance with Michigan orders, appearance at immigration hearings, and other reasonable nonconfinement supervision; relief as to Leonard Baroi denied/moot.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs face irreparable harm from COVID-19 in detention | Calhoun conditions + medical vulnerability create substantial risk of severe illness/death and constitutional injury | Precautions and low measured positivity mitigate risk; no large outbreak justifying release | Court: Plaintiffs face high risk of irreparable injury; constitutional harm presumed where rights threatened |
| Applicable legal standard for civil-detainee conditions claims (punishment v. deliberate indifference) | Bell/Younberg/Kingsley punishment/objective standard governs conditions claims for civil detainees | Apply Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference (subjective) standard to failure-to-protect/medical claims | Court: Bell punishment (objective) test applies; no subjective deliberate-indifference element required |
| Adequacy of Calhoun’s COVID-19 precautions (social distancing, testing, implementation) | Measures are insufficient: social distancing impossible, testing limited/voluntary, policies often not implemented | Facility follows ICE/CDC guidance, uses quarantine, conducted testing, has reduced population | Court: Precautions do not adequately mitigate risk (social distancing structurally impossible; testing and implementation inadequate) |
| Public interest, flight risk, and danger to community upon release | Release with supervised nonconfinement conditions and individualized plans protects health and safeguards proceedings | Release would frustrate immigration enforcement; some detainees are flight risks or dangerous | Court: Public interest favors release for the six plaintiffs; individualized supervision mitigates flight/danger concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (pretrial/civil detainee conditions—punishment test: confinement not permissible if not reasonably related to legitimate purpose)
- Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982) (civil detainees entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions of reasonable care and safety)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015) (objective standard for Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force/conditions claims for pretrial detainees)
- Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993) (Eighth Amendment conditions claim regarding exposure risk; deliberate indifference framework)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates Eighth Amendment)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference test requires both objective risk and subjective knowledge)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (Fifth Amendment protections for civil immigration detainees; limits on detention)
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003) (upholding detention during removal proceedings as constitutionally valid in certain contexts)
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (habeas corpus protects detainees seeking release from confinement)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (state’s affirmative restraint of liberty triggers duty to assume responsibility for detainee’s safety)
- Thompson v. Cty. of Medina, 29 F.3d 238 (6th Cir. 1994) (Sixth Circuit discussion of standards for pretrial detainee conditions claims)