Reid v. Donelan, 991 F. Supp. 2d 275

Petitioner Mark Anthony Reid, a lawful permanent resident, has been detained by ICE under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) since November 13, 2012 following criminal convictions and parole; detention lasted about 14 months at the time of decision.
Reid sought withholding under the Convention Against Torture and argued removal would be disproportionate; IJ denied relief and ordered removal; BIA remanded on one issue and later the IJ again denied relief; Reid intended to appeal further.
Reid also requested a bond redetermination from the IJ, which the IJ denied as lacking authority under § 1226(c); Reid then filed a § 2241 habeas petition challenging prolonged detention without an individualized bond hearing.
The central legal question was whether § 1226(c)’s mandatory detention contains a constitutional “reasonableness” limit on duration absent an individualized bond hearing, and if so how to apply it (bright-line six‑month rule vs. case-by-case analysis).
The court followed Bourguignon v. MacDonald and related precedent, concluding that § 1226(c) does include a reasonableness constraint and that detention beyond six months is presumptively unreasonable; it granted habeas and ordered an IJ bond hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1226(c) includes a due‑process "reasonableness" limit on detention without an individualized bond hearing	Reid: § 1226(c) must be read to include a reasonableness limit to avoid Fifth Amendment violations	Defendants: Demore upholds mandatory detention under § 1226(c) and precludes a temporal reasonableness limit	Court: § 1226(c) contains a reasonableness constraint (following Bourguignon and Zadvydas/Demore analysis)
Proper standard for applying "reasonableness" (bright‑line six months v. fact‑specific inquiry)	Reid: Six‑month bright‑line ensures uniform protection and avoids litigation barriers	Defendants: Favor case‑by‑case assessment tied to circumstances of each detainee	Court: Adopts six‑month presumptive rule (but notes petitioner would prevail even under case‑by‑case test)
Whether Reid’s 14‑month detention without a bond hearing was unreasonable	Reid: 14 months exceeds Demore’s brief detention expectation and is not foreseeable removal	Defendants: Process was proceeding (appeals, hearings); Demore contemplates longer detention in some cases	Court: 14 months is presumptively unreasonable; Reid entitled to bond hearing
Remedy required	Reid: Release or at least an individualized bond hearing	Defendants: No hearing required under § 1226(c) as interpreted	Court: Granted habeas; ordered bond hearing before IJ by specified date; report of compliance to court

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (post‑removal indefinite detention impermissible; detention beyond a presumptively reasonable period triggers need for justification)
Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003) (upheld mandatory detention during removal proceedings as constitutional for the brief period necessary)
Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013) (adopted six‑month bright‑line rule limiting § 1226(c) detention absent individualized findings)
Diop v. ICE/Homeland Security, 656 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2011) (recognized a reasonableness limit and favored a fact‑specific inquiry)
Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2011) (analyzed due process concerns for detention exceeding six months and informed Rodriguez’s approach)
Bourguignon v. MacDonald, 667 F. Supp. 2d 175 (D. Mass. 2009) (district court decision holding § 1226(c) includes a reasonableness limit; controlling in this district)
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) (endorsed prompt probable‑cause determinations; cited in support of pragmatic bright‑line temporal rules)
Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373 (1966) (plurality discussion of jury‑trial thresholds; cited for historical temporal rules)
Hussain v. Mukasey, 510 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2007) (dicta supporting parity between rights of detainees ordered removed and those contesting removal)