634 F. App'x 778
11th Cir.2015Background
- Marlon Vaz, a Brazilian national, entered the U.S. without inspection and was convicted in Georgia of family violence battery and theft, receiving consecutive 12‑month sentences.
- DHS initiated expedited removal proceedings and issued a Final Administrative Order of Removal on March 19, 2012; Vaz has been in DHS custody since March 5, 2012.
- DHS requested a Brazilian travel document in May 2012; the Brazilian Consulate stated it would not issue a travel document unless Vaz voluntarily signed for it and indicated willingness to return.
- Vaz filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition (Nov. 2012) seeking release on two grounds: (1) inadequate medical care for a right‑eye condition allegedly caused by dental treatment; (2) that his three‑year detention awaiting removal was unreasonably long.
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal: construing the medical claim under the Fifth Amendment and finding habeas an inappropriate vehicle for conditions‑of‑confinement claims, and concluding detention was not unreasonable because Vaz refused to cooperate with removal paperwork.
- The district court adopted the R&R and dismissed the § 2241 petition; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Vaz's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vaz’s claim of inadequate medical care while detained entitles him to habeas relief or release | Vaz argued his Fifth/Eighth Amendment rights were violated by deliberate indifference to his serious medical need and sought release | Government argued medical‑care claims challenge conditions of confinement (not the fact/duration) and § 2241 is not the proper vehicle; release is not an available remedy | Court held the claim challenges conditions, not custody, § 2241 is improper, and release is not a remedy for such claims (Fifth‑Amendment standard applies but remedy is not release) |
| Whether Vaz’s ~3‑year detention awaiting removal is unreasonable under Zadvydas | Vaz argued prolonged detention (over six months) was unreasonable and sought release | Government argued detention is justified because Vaz refused to cooperate/sign travel documents, extending the removal period under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C) | Court held detention was not unreasonable because Vaz’s refusal to sign/cooperate prevents removal; no showing that removal is not reasonably foreseeable if he cooperates |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowers v. Keller, 651 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for § 2241 denials and factual findings)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (six months presumptively reasonable detention pending removal; burden shifting thereafter)
- Gomez v. United States, 899 F.2d 1124 (11th Cir. 1990) (release is not an available remedy for conditions‑of‑confinement Eighth Amendment violations)
- Hamm v. DeKalb Cty., 774 F.2d 1567 (11th Cir. 1985) (Eighth Amendment protections attach only after conviction; pretrial detainees are protected by Due Process)
- Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637 (2004) (distinguishing core habeas challenges to fact/duration from challenges to conditions of confinement)
- Akinwale v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 1050 (11th Cir. 2002) (applying Zadvydas framework in this circuit for unreasonable‑detention claims)