Filed Date: Feb. 13, 2012
Closed Date: Feb. 2, 2019
Clearinghouse coding complete
On February 13, 2012, the plaintiff filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this §1983 class habeas action against the Connecticut Department of Corrections. The petition was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and assigned to Judge Janet Bond Arteton. The plaintiffs were detainees in Connecticut Department of Corrections (CDOC) facilities who, after the expiration of the state-law basis of their detention, remained in state custody solely due to an administrative "immigration detainer" placed by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Represented by the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization at Yale Law School, the plaintiffs sought a writ of habeas corpus requiring the state to release them, an injunction against detaining future individuals based solely on an immigration detainer, and declaratory judgment invalidating such detention.
Detainers issued by ICE request state and local law enforcement officials to hold individuals in custody, without any basis in state law, for up to 48 hours, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §287.7. The named plaintiff's state-based detention ended on February 10, 2012; he filed the petition on February 13, 2012 when his subsequent detention continued for more than 48 hours. On the same day, the plaintiff requested class certification of detainees similarly situated in CDOC facilities. Claiming they were detained without probable cause hearings,and that the detainer is an invalid commandeering of state officials, the plaintiff alleged violation of Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizure. Additionally, the plaintiff asserted that Fourteenth Amendment substantive and procedural due process rights were violated because the state lacked a compelling interest to continue detention.
On February 19, 2013, the parties entered a proposed settlement agreement based on the newly enacted state regulations. The settlement agreement states that if an ICE immigration detainer is placed on a detainee, he or she will be notified by the CDOC as soon as practicable. If the detainee's state-based detention has expired and the detainee does not have a prior order of removal or meet certain "dangerousness criteria" set forth in the statute, the detainee shall not be held. The statute allowed for only rare occasions where CDOC could use its discretion to continue detention. The court approved the settlement agreement on March 5, 2013.
The settlement agreement was set to expire on February 2, 2017. On February 2, 2017, the parties jointly moved to extend the termination date of the settlement agreement from February 2, 2017 to February 2, 2018. The court ordered the modification of the settlement agreement to reflect the extension that day, and the settlement agreement remained otherwise unchanged. On January 19, 2018, the parties moved to extend the settlement agreement for another year, and on January 26, 2018, the court modified the agreement with a new termination date of February 2, 2019.
As of April 14, 2020, there are no further entries in the docket and the settlement is presumed to have lapsed.
Summary Authors
Dan Osher (3/9/2013)
Sarah McDonald (8/13/2018)
Alex Moody (4/14/2020)
Arterton, Janet Bond (Connecticut)
Ahmad, Muneer I. (Connecticut)
Lai, Anne (Connecticut)
Wishnie, Michael J. (Connecticut)
Dearington, Robert S (Connecticut)
O'Neill, Terrance M. (Connecticut)
Strom, Steven R. (Connecticut)
Arterton, Janet Bond (Connecticut)
Ahmad, Muneer I. (Connecticut)
Lai, Anne (Connecticut)
Wishnie, Michael J. (Connecticut)
Dearington, Robert S (Connecticut)
O'Neill, Terrance M. (Connecticut)
Strom, Steven R. (Connecticut)
Last updated Feb. 24, 2023, 3:05 a.m.
State / Territory: Connecticut
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Post-PLRA enforceable consent decrees
Post-PLRA Jail and Prison Private Settlement Agreements
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 13, 2012
Closing Date: Feb. 2, 2019
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Those who have been (and are currently being) held in a Connecticut Department of Corrections facility based solely on an ICE "immigration detainer" for more than 48 hours.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization (Yale)
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Mooted before ruling
Defendants
Connecticut Department of Corrections (New Haven, CT, New Haven), State
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
Constitutional Clause(s):
Federalism (including 10th Amendment)
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration: 2013 - 2019
Content of Injunction:
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Issues
General:
Placement in detention facilities
Type of Facility:
Immigration/Border: