Case: Brizuela v. Feliciano

3:12-cv-00226 | U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut

Filed Date: Feb. 13, 2012

Closed Date: Feb. 2, 2019

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

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 administra…

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)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14310487/parties/brizuela-v-feliciano/


Judge(s)

Arterton, Janet Bond (Connecticut)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Ahmad, Muneer I. (Connecticut)

Lai, Anne (Connecticut)

Attorney for Defendant

Dearington, Robert S (Connecticut)

O'Neill, Terrance M. (Connecticut)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

3:12-cv-00226

Docket [PACER]

Jan. 26, 2018

Jan. 26, 2018

Docket
1

3:12-cv-00226

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Feb. 13, 2012

Feb. 13, 2012

Complaint
23

3:12-cv-00226

Order of Administrative Dismissal

Aug. 6, 2012

Aug. 6, 2012

Order/Opinion
25

3:12-cv-00226

Settlement Agreement and Stipulation of Dismissal upon Termination of Agreement

Feb. 8, 2013

Feb. 8, 2013

Settlement Agreement
27

3:12-cv-00226

Settlement Agreement Signed Order

March 1, 2013

March 1, 2013

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14310487/brizuela-v-feliciano/

Last updated April 7, 2025, 3:15 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
30

Stipulation

Feb. 2, 2017

Feb. 2, 2017

PACER
30

Stipulation

Feb. 2, 2017

Feb. 2, 2017

PACER
30

Stipulation

Feb. 2, 2017

Feb. 2, 2017

PACER
30

Stipulation

Feb. 2, 2017

Feb. 2, 2017

PACER
30

Stipulation

Feb. 2, 2017

Feb. 2, 2017

PACER
31

Order

Feb. 2, 2017

Feb. 2, 2017

PACER
31

Order

Feb. 2, 2017

Feb. 2, 2017

PACER
31

Order

Feb. 2, 2017

Feb. 2, 2017

PACER
31

Order

Feb. 2, 2017

Feb. 2, 2017

PACER
31

Order

Feb. 2, 2017

Feb. 2, 2017

PACER
32

Settlement

Jan. 19, 2018

Jan. 19, 2018

PACER
32

Settlement

Jan. 19, 2018

Jan. 19, 2018

PACER
32

Settlement

Jan. 19, 2018

Jan. 19, 2018

PACER
32

Settlement

Jan. 19, 2018

Jan. 19, 2018

PACER
32

Settlement

Jan. 19, 2018

Jan. 19, 2018

PACER
33

Order on Motion for Settlement

Jan. 26, 2018

Jan. 26, 2018

PACER
33

Order on Motion for Settlement

Jan. 26, 2018

Jan. 26, 2018

PACER
33

Order on Motion for Settlement

Jan. 26, 2018

Jan. 26, 2018

PACER
33

Order on Motion for Settlement

Jan. 26, 2018

Jan. 26, 2018

PACER
33

Order on Motion for Settlement

Jan. 26, 2018

Jan. 26, 2018

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Connecticut

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

Special Collection(s):

Post-PLRA enforceable consent decrees

Post-PLRA Jail and Prison Private Settlement Agreements

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

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):

Private Plaintiff

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):

Corrections

Facility Type(s):

Government-run

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

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):

Due Process

Federalism (including 10th Amendment)

Special Case Type(s):

Habeas

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Private Settlement Agreement

Conditional Dismissal

Content of Injunction:

Implement complaint/dispute resolution process

Reporting

Recordkeeping

Auditing

Required disclosure

Order Duration: 2013 - 2019

Issues

Immigration/Border:

Constitutional rights

Detention - criteria

Detention - procedures

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Habeas Corpus

Over/Unlawful Detention (facilities)

Placement in detention facilities