Richard Ortega v. United States Immigration & Customs Enforcement
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24470
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Ortega, a U.S. citizen, began a March 18, 2011 home-confinement sentence with an electronic monitor for DUI; he could leave only for approved purposes.
- ICE issued a detainer against Ortega after a name/date resemblance to an unlawful noncitizen, informingCorrections that Ortega’s status was under immigration investigation.
- Corrections detained Ortega from March 19 to March 22, moving him to a traditional prison setting based on the detainer.
- Corrections did not verify Ortega’s citizenship before incarceration and acted under a policy to hold anyone with a detainer.
- Ortega sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens alleging due-process and unreasonable-seizure violations; the district court granted qualified-immunity dismissals.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that Ortega did not have a clearly established liberty interest in remaining on home confinement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does home confinement give a due process liberty interest? | Ortega asserts a protected liberty interest in remaining on home confinement. | Defendants argue no clearly established right exists for home confinement in this context. | Right not clearly established; qualified immunity applies. |
| Does moving from home confinement to jail constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure? | Ortega contends the transfer amounted to an unlawful seizure without probable cause. | Defendants argue absence of clearly established seizure rights in this in-between confinement scenario. | Right not clearly established; qualified immunity applies. |
| Were Ortega’s rights clearly established by March 2011 to defeat qualified immunity? | Ortega argues existing cases show home confinement rights were recognized. | Defendants contend no controlling authority or robust consensus on this exact scenario existed. | No clearly established right; qualified immunity defense sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (unconstitutionality of official action judged by objective reasonableness of conduct)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (probation/parole due-process safeguards)
- Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (liberty interest in prison-transfer due process analysis)
- Young v. Harper, 520 U.S. 143 (1997) (due-process protections in confinement contexts)
- Sneed v. Donahue, 993 F.2d 1239 (1993) (due-process rights in confinement contexts)
- Powers v. Hamilton Cnty. Pub. Defender Comm’n, 501 F.3d 592 (6th Cir. 2007) (clearly established rights inquiry in qualified-immunity analysis)
- Gonzalez-Fuentes v. Molina, 607 F.3d 864 (1st Cir. 2010) (home confinement resembles probation/parole liberty interests; open question for some circuits)
- Domka v. Portage Cnty., 523 F.3d 776 (7th Cir. 2008) (discussion of home confinement versus traditional imprisonment)
- Paige v. Hudson, 341 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2003) ( dicta on liberty interest in remaining on home confinement)
- Ganem v. U.S. INS, 825 F.2d 410 (6th Cir. 1987) (detainer impact on prison classification and programs (unpublished per curiam))