Filed Date: March 30, 2020
Clearinghouse coding complete
COVID-19 Summary: A medically vulnerable immigration detainee filed this case on March 30, 2020. The detainee alleged that ongoing detention violated her due process rights because it was unlawfully punitive given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Additional detainees intervened. The court granted several releases in the form of preliminary injunctions. The court also certified a class, instituted procedures for bail applications from detainees within the class, and continued to grant temporary releases upon application. No significant docket activity has occurred since October 2021, after the jail began providing the COVID-19 vaccine to detainees.
This case concerns the due process rights of civil immigration detainees with medical vulnerabilities during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 30, 2020, an individual lawful permanent resident, in removal proceedings in Detroit and detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Calhoun County Correctional Facility, filed this emergency habeas petition and complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiff sued ICE and two of its officers, the acting director of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), the Attorney General of the United States, and the director of the Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”). The plaintiff claimed that her continued detention violated her Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process by exposing her to substantial risk of illness and death from the COVID-19 virus. The plaintiff sought emergency relief via a writ of habeas corpus or an injunction ordering her release. The case was assigned to Judge Judith E. Levy.
The case was prompted by the outbreak of COVID-19 in Michigan; as of April 5, 2020, there were "15,718 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 617 known related deaths, with 238 confirmed cases within the [MDOC] system specifically." The outbreak resulted in public health measures emphasizing and enforcing social distancing throughout the area. However, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) cautioned that detention facilities increased the risk of COVID-19 and caused rapid outbreaks, as detainees are unable to exercise effective social distancing and good hygiene measures. Because no COVID-19 vaccine or treatment existed in the spring of 2020, the virus’s spread would be especially dangerous for detainees over the age of 50 or those with certain underlying health conditions such as lung, heart, and kidney disease.
The first plaintiff was 56 years old and asserted that she suffered from several health conditions, including essential primary hypertension and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, making her particularly vulnerable to serious illness or death from COVID-19. The plaintiff alleged that because of her underlying health problems and the conditions of confinement making disease prevention difficult, continued detention amounted to punishment and failed to ensure her safety and health, violating her right to due process. The plaintiff asserted that despite the measures taken by the facility to mitigate the risk of a COVID-19 outbreak, "due to her underlying serious health conditions, there is no communal holding facility where she could be incarcerated during the COVID-19 pandemic that would be constitutional."
The plaintiff simultaneously filed an application for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to release the plaintiff while her immigration proceedings were pending.
On April 5, 2020, the court granted the TRO in part. Judge Levy ordered the defendants to release the plaintiff immediately, followed by fourteen days of home quarantine. The court also ordered the plaintiff to appear at all hearings pertaining to her removal proceedings. Judge Levy enjoined the defendants from arresting the plaintiff for civil immigration detention purposes until the State of Emergency in Michigan was removed and required them to show cause by April 10, 2020 as to why the TRO should not be converted into a preliminary injunction. Judge Levy concluded that the plaintiff established a likelihood of irreparable harm because her severe health issues and the jail conditions made it substantially likely that she would contract COVID-19 and face serious harm or even death. 452 F. Supp. 3d 643. (The next day, Judge Levy issued an amended opinion and order adding a term of nonconfinement supervision for the plaintiff's release.).
Also on April 5, 2020, Judge Levy granted a motion allowing two individuals to intervene. The intervenors, represented by the ACLU of Michigan and private counsel, filed an emergency petition for writ of habeas corpus and complaint for injunctive relief, as well as an emergency motion for a TRO. Judge Levy stated that the intervenors' motion raised substantially similar factual and legal issues as the plaintiff's application for a TRO.
Following expedited briefing, on April 9, 2020, Judge Levy granted in part the intervenors' motion for a TRO, requiring the immediate release of one of the intervenors from detention for the duration of the COVID-19 State of Emergency in Michigan or until further court order. The other intervenor who requested immediate release in the motion for TRO had already been released from ICE detention on an Order of Supervision. The intervenor who was granted immediate release from detention was 55 years old and suffered from hypotension, a hernia, and a prostate issue. Judge Levy concluded that, although the intervenor presented a less severe risk than the plaintiff who had been granted immediate release, the intervenor deserved immediate release "because he is at a sufficiently heightened risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19," applying the same reasoning used in the April 5 order for TRO. Moreover, Judge Levy found that the intervenor's "alleged incomplete access to medical care weighs in favor of granting relief." The defendants were required to show cause, by April 21, as to why the TRO should not be converted into a preliminary injunction. 2020 WL 1809675.
A week later, on April 17, 2020, the court converted the April 5 TRO into a preliminary injunction requiring the plaintiff's continued release. In concluding that converting the TRO into a preliminary injunction was "appropriate and necessary," Judge Levy found that plaintiff was "at unreasonable risk of contracting COVID-19 should she remain in the Calhoun County Correctional Facility, regardless of precautions taken," and that she was at "serious risk of severe illness and death should she contract COVID-19." Judge Levy stated that "to order Petitioner’s continued civil detention would be to play Russian roulette with her rights and with her life." 455 F. Supp. 3d 384.
In their response to the court's order to show cause why the April 9 TRO should not also be converted into a preliminary injunction, the defendants argued that a preliminary injunction was unwarranted with respect to the intervenor because the intervenor had not shown a risk of exposure to COVID-19 sufficient to state a cognizable constitutional claim and because he had not shown that defendants acted with deliberate indifference. The defendants further argued that the public interest favored denying injunctive relief because releasing the intervenor "would support a finding that it is unconstitutional for ICE to detain any noncitizen during the COVID-19 pandemic."
On April 22, 2020, Judge Levy converted her second TRO into a preliminary injunction, requiring release to last through the duration of the COVID-19 outbreak. The court found that the intervenor’s age and mobility issues put him at high risk for severe complications and/or death from COVID-19. Judge Levy also concluded that granting injunctive relief for this one highly vulnerable individual would not serve as precedent for releasing many non-citizens from immigration detention. 2020 WL 1934895.
On April 26, 2020, fifteen named plaintiffs filed an amended habeas petition and complaint, this time as a putative class action.
The plaintiffs filed another emergency motion for a TRO. On May 12, 2020, the court partially granted the motion and converted it into a motion for a preliminary injunction. Judge Levy found that some, but not all, of the plaintiffs had demonstrated a risk of severe illness or death, and so granted the motion as to those individuals. 459 F. Supp. 3d 867. On May 23, 2020, Judge Levy granted release for two more plaintiffs. 2020 WL 2616242.
On June 5, 2020, twenty named plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint and habeas petition. On the same day, the plaintiffs moved again for a TRO.
Judge Levy granted the June 5 TRO for all but one of the inmates on June 28, 2020. The court held that COVID-19 posed a high risk of irreparable injury to the inmates and that detention was unnecessary to achieve the government’s interests, so detaining the plaintiffs constituted unconstitutional punishment. 469 F. Supp. 3d 767. Overall, Judge Levy ordered about a dozen releases.
Meanwhile, on June 14, 2020, the plaintiffs submitted a motion to certify a class of "all noncitizens who are detained in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody at Calhoun" and a subclass of "all noncitizens who are detained in ICE custody in the Calhoun County Correctional Center, and who have one or more risk factors placing them at heightened risk of severe illness or death if exposed to COVID-19." On July 31, 2020, the court granted class certification. Judge Levy certified a class of all noncitizens in ICE custody at Calhoun with respect to the plaintiffs’ first claim (violation of Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause for impermissible punishment of civil detainees), and a habeas litigation class of those class members with greater risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19. 475 F. Supp. 3d 721.
On July 27, 2020, the defendants moved to amend the June 28 order granting a preliminary injunction that resulted in the release of six medically vulnerable detainees. They argued that an intervening decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Cameron v. Bouchard, required vacating the preliminary injunction.
On August 4, 2020, Judge Levy established bail hearing procedures for the members of the habeas litigation subclass. The procedures included individualized bail hearings (akin to criminal proceedings that consider danger and flight risks) beginning on August 12 for members of the subclass, once the court had determined each individual's membership in the subclass. 2020 WL 4496597. On August 19, 2020, Judge Levy amended the class and habeas litigation group definition to include "noncitizens formerly detained at the Calhoun County Correctional Facility and released as a result of an order issued by [this court]." The court issued this order to cover detainees with functionally identical claims who had individually applied for release and were no longer in custody, but still faced re-detention should their order or injunction expire or be overturned. 2020 WL 4818894.
On August 25, 2020, the court denied the defendants’ July 27 motion to amend the judgment. Judge Levy held that Cameron v. Bouchard did not conflict with the June 28 order and was not binding precedent because it was unpublished. 481 F. Supp. 3d 631.
Between September 28 and October 22, 2020, Judge Levy issued four orders granting bail applications for six detainees, noting that Calhoun County Correctional Facility at that time had twelve positive cases for COVID-19. After receiving notice from the defendants that an additional thirteen Calhoun detainees and two staff members tested positive for COVID-19, the court held an emergency hearing on October 26, 2020 regarding the surge in cases and precautionary measures. On October 27, 2020, the court required the defendants to submit a proposed plan addressing the risks to detainees, especially high-risk detainees. The defendants submitted a response later that day, highlighting segregated housing, bi-weekly testing, and mask mandates in common areas for detainees and staff.
In the subsequent weeks, the plaintiffs alleged that the implementation of the defendants' plan failed to address the escalating crisis in the facility, and moved for emergency relief. The number of COVID-19 cases among incarcerated people and staff continued to increase. Because the class members were still being exposed to a deliberate-indifference level of harm, the court granted bail applications for eight class members on November 30, 2020. 2020 WL 7027435. Judge Levy continued to grant additional bail applications in the following weeks. See, e.g., 2020 WL 7264756.
To get a better sense of the conditions at the facility, Judge Levy also required the defendants to allow an in-person inspection by the plaintiffs’ expert. On January 7, 2021, Dr. Homer Venters submitted his report pursuant to this order. His report detailed "fundamental, structural issues" at the Calhoun County Correctional Facility that still persisted despite the defendants' precautions. Specifically, there was a lack of social distancing, a lack of comprehensive testing, and inadequate screening for COVID-19 symptoms. Dr. Venters concluded that the plaintiffs continued to raise substantial claims of law for habeas litigation group members because the risk of infection was too high for individuals with pre-existing conditions.
Meanwhile, the defendants appealed multiple orders granting bail to the Sixth Circuit on December 10, 2020. The defendants voluntarily dismissed these appeals in March and May of 2021. See, e.g., 2021 WL 1400901; 2021 WL 5263596; 2021 WL 3627248.
The court held a status conference on March 1, 2021. The parties discussed a memo issued by Acting Director of ICE Tae D. Johnson, titled Interim Guidance: Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Priorities. Two weeks later, the court held another status conference, in which the defendants discussed their plan to educate the Calhoun detainees and vaccinate them against COVID-19.
Meanwhile, the court issued several more orders throughout 2020 and early 2021 granting bail to members of the habeas litigation groups. See, e.g., 2020 WL 7324697; 2020 WL 7684102; 2021 WL 836532; 2021 WL 398500.
On April 27, 2021 the court denied bail for several detainees who had received the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine. Judge Levy held that because the vaccine protects against dire health outcomes from COVID-19, the detainees no longer met the “heightened risk” threshold that justified membership in the habeas litigation group. The court also denied bail for a detainee who refused to take the vaccine, for similar reasons. 2021 WL 1658689.
The court held settlement conferences on April 29 and May 12, 2021, as well as January 12, 2022. The Clearinghouse could not locate more information about potential settlement talks.
As of March 19, 2024, no significant docket activity has occurred since October 14, 2021.
Summary Authors
Aaron Gurley (4/18/2020)
Jack Hibbard (8/3/2020)
Chandler Hart-McGonigle (11/1/2020)
Justin Hill (1/12/2021)
Sophia Acker (3/19/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17026196/parties/malam-v-rebecca-adducci/
Amaro-Luedtke, Caterina (Michigan)
Andrade, Monica (Michigan)
Atiya, Shahad (Michigan)
Aukerman, Miriam (Michigan)
Balakrishnan, Anand V. (New York)
Amaro-Luedtke, Caterina (Michigan)
Balakrishnan, Anand V. (New York)
Cho, Eunice (District of Columbia)
Colthirst, Jennipher L.M. (Michigan)
Fathi, David Cyrus (District of Columbia)
Fiorill, Rachel M (District of Columbia)
Gardner, Darren S (District of Columbia)
Gonsalves, Gregg S. (Connecticut)
Granzotto, Joe (District of Columbia)
Jaffe, Peter (District of Columbia)
Lawyer, Stanton (District of Columbia)
Lewis, Ayesha Elaine (Michigan)
McKenzie, Katherine (Connecticut)
Mendelsohn, Mark (District of Columbia)
O'Loughlin, Robert Joseph III (New York)
Palmer, Breanne J (District of Columbia)
Peeler, Katherine Ratzan (Massachusetts)
Rhee, Jeannie S. (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17026196/malam-v-rebecca-adducci/
Last updated Feb. 7, 2025, 3 a.m.
State / Territory: Michigan
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Post-WalMart decisions on class certification
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 30, 2020
Case Ongoing: Perhaps, but long-dormant
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Class of all noncitizens detained in ICE custody at Calhoun County Correctional Facility and habeas litigation group of Calhoun ICE detainees with COVID-19 risk factors
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Michigan Department of Corrections, State
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (- United States (national) -), Federal
Attorney General of the United States (- United States (national) -), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Order Duration: 2020 - None
Issues
General/Misc.:
Sanitation / living conditions
COVID-19:
Independent monitor/inspector imposed/assisted
Release-process created/modified
Immigration/Border:
Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Placement in detention facilities
Medical/Mental Health Care: