Case: Albino-Martinez v. Adducci

2:20-cv-10893 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

Filed Date: April 7, 2020

Closed Date: May 1, 2020

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

COVID-19 Summary: Five immigration detainees filed a habeas petition and a motion for a temporary restraining order challenging their continued detention in Michigan jails despite their heightened vulnerability to COVID-19. On April 14, the district court denied the plaintiffs' request for a TRO. On April 29, the court issued an opinion denying the plaintiffs' habeas petition and dismissing their claims. On April 7, 2020, five immigration detainees filed a habeas petition and lawsuit in the U.S…

COVID-19 Summary: Five immigration detainees filed a habeas petition and a motion for a temporary restraining order challenging their continued detention in Michigan jails despite their heightened vulnerability to COVID-19. On April 14, the district court denied the plaintiffs' request for a TRO. On April 29, the court issued an opinion denying the plaintiffs' habeas petition and dismissing their claims.


On April 7, 2020, five immigration detainees filed a habeas petition and lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Department of Justice (DOJ). The plaintiffs were being held in ICE custody at the Monroe County Jail and the St. Clair County Jail in Michigan, and alleged they were particularly vulnerable to serious illness or death if infected by COVID-19. Represented by the ACLU of Michigan, the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, the ACLU National Prison Project, and private counsel, the plaintiffs sought a writ of habeas corpus and an order for the plaintiffs’ immediate release on the ground that their continued detention violated the Due Process Clause or, in the alternative, injunctive relief to the same effect. The plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) requesting immediate release in addition to their complaint. The plaintiffs also sought declaratory relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. The case was assigned to Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III.

The complaint claimed that the plaintiffs faced a heightened risk of contracting the virus due to their confinement. It further stated that the plaintiffs were older adults and/or had underlying medical conditions creating a high risk of serious infection. The plaintiffs alleged that their continued detention subjected them to unlawful punishment in violation of their Fifth Amendment right to substantive due process.

The plaintiffs also stated that one of the plaintiffs had been scheduled to be removed from the U.S. in March, but ICE had indefinitely delayed that departure date. Consequently, the plaintiff was being detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231, which authorizes a 90-day period of mandatory post-final-order detention during which ICE is supposed to effectuate removal. The plaintiffs alleged that this plaintiff would necessarily be detained beyond this 90-day period due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and should therefore be immediately released under an order of supervision.

On April 14, Judge Murphy denied the plaintiffs' emergency motion for a TRO. In his opinion, Judge Murphy stated that the plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment claims were more properly analyzed under the Eighth Amendment standard for claims relating to health concerns. He then concluded that at this early stage, the plaintiffs had failed to show that they are or will be exposed to a substantial risk of serious harm such that this relief was warranted. Judge Murphy noted that detention centers were implementing recommendations for preventing the spread of COVID-19, and that the plaintiffs had not provided much facility-specific information regarding the outbreak. 2020 WL 1872362.

The defendants filed their response to the plaintiffs' habeas petition on April 17.

On April 29, 2020, Judge Murphy issued an opinion and order denying the plaintiffs' habeas petition and granting in part and denying in part a motion they had filed on April 20 seeking leave to submit additional evidence. Judge Murphy first noted that of the original five petitioners, only two still had live claims; since filing, one had been released, one had been deported, and one had been transferred to a facility in Louisiana. Consequently, the only claims remaining related to the Monroe facility and the plaintiff being detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231.

Addressing the plaintiffs' due process claims, Judge Murphy again noted that the claims were more properly analyzed under the Eighth Amendment's deliberate indifference standard because they related to health concerns. He found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that they had objectively been exposed to a substantial risk of serious harm; rather, he stated that COVID-19 posed a risk of serious illness to all Americans, whether detained or not. He concluded that COVID-19 had not "breached the walls" of the Monroe detention facility, and that detention centers were implementing precautions to prevent its spread. He next noted that most of the evidence the plaintiffs had presented was not specific to the Monroe facility, but rather focused on ICE facilities throughout the U.S.

Judge Murphy next addressed the claim that one plaintiff was being detained in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) because his removal was not reasonably likely in the foreseeable future. He concluded that the statute's 90-day period of mandatory post-final-order detention would not expire until May 25, 2020, at the earliest, meaning that the plaintiff had only alleged a potential future violation. Consequently, Judge Murphy denied the plaintiff's claim without prejudice.

Judge Murphy entered a final judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs did not file an appeal, and the case is closed.

Summary Authors

Sam Kulhanek (7/17/2020)

Lily Sawyer-Kaplan (10/18/2020)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17051451/parties/albino-martinez-v-adducci/


Judge(s)

Grand, David R. (Michigan)

Levy, Judith Ellen (Michigan)

Murphy, Stephen Joseph III (Michigan)

Patti, Anthony P. (Michigan)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Andrade, Monica (Michigan)

Aukerman, Miriam (Michigan)

Balakrishnan, Anand V. (New York)

Cho, Eunice (District of Columbia)

Contreras, Jonathan (Michigan)

Fathi, David Cyrus (District of Columbia)

Judge(s)

Grand, David R. (Michigan)

Levy, Judith Ellen (Michigan)

Murphy, Stephen Joseph III (Michigan)

Patti, Anthony P. (Michigan)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Andrade, Monica (Michigan)

Aukerman, Miriam (Michigan)

Balakrishnan, Anand V. (New York)

Cho, Eunice (District of Columbia)

Contreras, Jonathan (Michigan)

Fathi, David Cyrus (District of Columbia)

Fiorill, Rachel M (District of Columbia)

Garbacik, Rosana Santana Moura (Michigan)

Jadwat, Omar C. (New York)

Jaffe, Peter (District of Columbia)

Kaplovitz, Ronald (Michigan)

Korobkin, Daniel S. (Michigan)

Lewis, Ayesha Elaine (Michigan)

Mendelsohn, Mark (District of Columbia)

Ngo, My Khanh (California)

Payson, Travis J (Colorado)

Rhee, Jeannie S. (District of Columbia)

Silberstein-Loeb, Jonathan M (New York)

Stacer, Andrew D (Michigan)

Tan, Michael K. T. (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Darling, Bradley (Michigan)

Newby, Jennifer L. (Michigan)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Golob, Jonathan Louis (Michigan)

Greifinger, Robert B. (New York)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:20-cv-10893

Docket

May 1, 2020

May 1, 2020

Docket
1

2:20-cv-10893

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief

April 7, 2020

April 7, 2020

Complaint
2

2:20-cv-10893

Petitioner-Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

April 7, 2020

April 7, 2020

Pleading / Motion / Brief
17

2:20-cv-10893

Opinion and Order Denying Petitioners' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order [2] and Granting Petitioners' Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages [12]

454 F.Supp.3d 642, 2020 WL 1872362

April 14, 2020

April 14, 2020

Order/Opinion
30

2:20-cv-10893

Opinion and Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [1] and Granting in Part and Denying in Part Petitioners' Motion for Leave to Submit Additional Evidence [23]

April 29, 2020

April 29, 2020

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17051451/albino-martinez-v-adducci/

Last updated Aug. 4, 2022, 3 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

Civil Case - Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

April 8, 2020

April 8, 2020

PACER
2

Temporary Restraining Order

April 8, 2020

April 8, 2020

PACER
3

Appearance

April 8, 2020

April 8, 2020

PACER
4

Appearance

April 8, 2020

April 8, 2020

PACER
5

Appearance

April 8, 2020

April 8, 2020

PACER
7

Notice - Other

April 8, 2020

April 8, 2020

PACER
6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 2 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Reynaldo Albino−Martinez, Miguel Angel Aparicio Navas, Jose Nicolas Chavez−Vargas, Gener Alejandro Chinchilla−Flores, Craig Doble (Rhee, Jeannie) (Entered: 04/08/2020)

April 8, 2020

April 8, 2020

8

Appearance

April 8, 2020

April 8, 2020

PACER
9

Requiring Responsive Pleading*

April 8, 2020

April 8, 2020

PACER
10

Response to Motion

April 10, 2020

April 10, 2020

PACER
11

Reply to Response to Motion

April 13, 2020

April 13, 2020

PACER
12

File Excess Pages

April 13, 2020

April 13, 2020

PACER
13

Sur-Reply

April 13, 2020

April 13, 2020

PACER
14

[STRICKEN PURUSANT TO 04/14/20 ORDER] DECLARATION by MIGUEL ANGEL APARICIO NAVAS re 2 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order (Declaration in Further Support) filed by Reynaldo Albino−Martinez, Miguel Angel Aparicio Navas, Jose Nicolas Chavez−Vargas, Gener Alejandro Chinchilla−Flores, Craig Doble (Rhee, Jeannie) Modified on 4/15/2020 (DPer). (Entered: 04/14/2020)

April 14, 2020

April 14, 2020

15

Appearance

April 14, 2020

April 14, 2020

PACER
16

Appearance

April 14, 2020

April 14, 2020

PACER
17

OPINION AND ORDER denying 2 Motion for TRO and granting 12 Motion for leave to file excess pages. Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (DPer)

April 14, 2020

April 14, 2020

RECAP
18

Appear*

April 15, 2020

April 15, 2020

PACER
19

Appearance

April 15, 2020

April 15, 2020

PACER
20

Appear*

April 17, 2020

April 17, 2020

PACER
21

Response to Habeas Petition

April 17, 2020

April 17, 2020

PACER

Text-Only Notice of Hearing Cancelled

April 17, 2020

April 17, 2020

PACER
22

Reply - Free

April 20, 2020

April 20, 2020

PACER
23

Leave to File

April 20, 2020

April 20, 2020

PACER
24

Response to Motion

April 21, 2020

April 21, 2020

PACER
25

Appearance

April 21, 2020

April 21, 2020

PACER
26

Order

April 22, 2020

April 22, 2020

PACER

Text-Only Notice of Hearing Cancelled

April 22, 2020

April 22, 2020

PACER
28

Response - Free

April 28, 2020

April 28, 2020

PACER
29

Leave to File

April 29, 2020

April 29, 2020

PACER
30

Order on Motion for Leave to File

April 29, 2020

April 29, 2020

PACER
31

Judgment*

April 29, 2020

April 29, 2020

PACER
32

Sealed Order - Docket Entry or Document

May 1, 2020

May 1, 2020

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Michigan

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

Special Collection(s):

COVID-19 (novel coronavirus)

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: April 7, 2020

Closing Date: May 1, 2020

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Five immigration detainees being held at the Monroe County Jail and the St. Clair County Jail in Michigan who are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU of Michigan

ACLU National Prison Project

ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal

Defendant Type(s):

Corrections

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Due Process: Substantive Due Process

Special Case Type(s):

Habeas

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Non-settlement Outcome

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief denied

Issues

General:

Bathing and hygiene

Conditions of confinement

Habeas Corpus

Sanitation / living conditions

Totality of conditions

COVID-19:

Mitigation Denied

Mitigation Requested

Release Denied

Release Requested

Type of Facility:

Government-run

Immigration/Border:

Constitutional rights

Detention - conditions

Detention - criteria

Detention - procedures