459 F.Supp.3d 561
S.D.N.Y.2020Background:
- Petitioners are ICE detainees housed at Essex County Jail facing removal; the facility had multiple confirmed COVID-19 cases and Petitioners have chronic conditions (Louis: chest/rib injuries, breathing problems, PTSD; Valenzuela Arias: chest lump requiring surgery).
- Petitioners obtained a TRO ordering release; the Court considered converting the TRO into a preliminary injunction and extended release pending that decision.
- Respondents argued the case should be severed, that venue/improper respondents required dismissal or transfer, and that facility mitigation measures defeat relief.
- The Court denied severance, held ICE Field Office Director Decker (not the local warden) is the proper respondent in this district, and dismissed Secretary Wolf as a remote supervisory official.
- On the merits the Court found (1) petitioners face imminent risk of serious illness or death in detention, (2) facility measures (cohorting, inadequate social distancing, reliance on antibody testing, incomplete monitoring) are insufficient, and (3) Petitioners demonstrated deliberate indifference and constitutional injury.
- The Court granted a preliminary injunction: Petitioners remain released under court conditions and Respondents are restrained from re-arresting them for civil immigration detention without leave of court; alternatively, bail pending habeas resolution was ordered under Mapp.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Severance of multi-party petition | Joint habeas appropriate because detainees share the same unsafe facility conditions and common legal question | Should be severed into separate habeas actions because medical conditions and exposures differ | Denied; multi-party habeas permitted for shared complaints about legality of confinement |
| Proper respondent and venue | Decker (ICE Field Office Director) is the federal official with immediate control over detainees in a contracted county jail and is proper respondent here | The county warden is the immediate custodian and claims venue lies in New Jersey | Decker is proper respondent in S.D.N.Y.; Wolf (DHS Sec.) dismissed as a remote supervisor; transfer denied |
| Irreparable harm for preliminary injunction | Continued detention poses imminent risk of severe illness or death and alleges constitutional deprivation | Respondents point to mitigation measures at the facility to show risk is addressed | Irreparable harm established: risk to health and alleged constitutional violation suffice |
| Likelihood of success on due process claim (deliberate indifference) | Conditions and protocols (cohorting, impossible social distancing, flawed antibody testing, inadequate monitoring/protections) show ICE/host facility knew or should have known of excessive risk and failed to mitigate | Respondents cite implemented measures, testing, and releases as adequate responses | Petitioners likely to succeed: Court finds measures inadequate and that deliberate indifference standard is met |
| Balance of equities & public interest | Public health and Petitioners' constitutional rights favor release; detention would risk greater community spread | Government cites statutory detention obligations and public safety interests | Equities and public interest favor release; strict conditions of release imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (U.S. 2004) (habeas respondent is the official with immediate custody and power to produce the detainee)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (U.S. 2001) (Fifth Amendment due process protections apply to all persons in the United States)
- Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1993) (exposure to a serious communicable disease can violate conditions-of-confinement due process)
- Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2017) (deliberate indifference standard for pretrial detainees' medical needs)
- Charles v. Orange County, 925 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2019) (deliberate indifference may be shown under an objective reckless-failure-to-act standard)
- Mapp v. Reno, 241 F.3d 221 (2d Cir. 2001) (federal courts’ authority to admit detainees to bail pending habeas when extraordinary circumstances make bail necessary)
- Friends of the E. Hampton Airport, Inc. v. Town of E. Hampton, 841 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2016) (standards for preliminary injunctions against government action)
- Faiveley Transport Malmo AB v. Wabtec Corp., 559 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2009) (irreparable harm is the most important factor for preliminary injunction)
- United States ex rel. Sero v. Preiser, 506 F.2d 1115 (2d Cir. 1974) (multi-party habeas/class-like habeas proceedings permissible)