University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Malam v. Adducci IM-MI-0006
Docket / Court 5:20-cv-10829 ( E.D. Mich. )
State/Territory Michigan
Case Type(s) Immigration and/or the Border
Special Collection COVID-19 (novel coronavirus)
Post-WalMart decisions on class certification
Attorney Organization ACLU Affiliates (any)
ACLU of Michigan
Case Summary
COVID-19 Summary: In this case filed March 30, 2020, by a particularly vulnerable immigration detainee, the Court granted release on April 5, holding that ongoing detention was unlawfully punitive given the grave threat posed by detention during the coronavirus pandemic. Additional detainees ... read more >
COVID-19 Summary: In this case filed March 30, 2020, by a particularly vulnerable immigration detainee, the Court granted release on April 5, holding that ongoing detention was unlawfully punitive given the grave threat posed by detention during the coronavirus pandemic. Additional detainees intervened, and the Court has granted additional releases and has converted the TROs ordering releases into preliminary injunctions. The Court certified a class, instituted procedures for bail applications from detainees within the class, and continued to grant temporary releases upon application. The defendants appealed the releases on October 2. Applications for release are ongoing and the appeal is pending.


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 jail, filed this emergency habeas petition and complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. 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 Amendment rights by exposing her to substantial risk of illness and death. The plaintiff sought emergency relief via a writ of habeas corpus or an injunction "ordering Defendants to immediately release [Petitioner], with appropriate precautionary public health measures, on the grounds that her continued detention violates the Due Process Clause [of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments].” 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) "noted that many detention conditions create a heightened risk of danger to detainees," as detainees are unable to exercise effective social distancing and good hygiene measures. "Even the most stringent precautionary measures" to slow the spread of COVID-19 in detention facilities are likely to be inadequate; "medical experts at the Department of Homeland Security have warned that detention confinement creates a 'tinderbox scenario' where rapid outbreak is extremely likely, and extremely likely to lead to deadly results as resources dwindle on an exponential level." The spread of COVID-19 (for which there is no vaccine, known treatment, or cure) 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 in the event that she contracts 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) "requesting that the Court order Petitioner’s release during the pendency of her immigration proceedings due to the substantial risk to her health posed by COVID-19 as a result of Petitioner’s continued detention in the enclosed group environment endemic to the Calhoun County Correctional Facility."

On April 5, Judge Levy issued an opinion and order granting the application for TRO in part. Judge Levy ordered the defendants to release the plaintiff immediately, "subject to the following restrictions: Petitioner is subject to fourteen days of home quarantine; Petitioner must comply with all Michigan Executive Orders; and Petitioner must 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 is removed and required them to show cause by April 10 as to why the TRO should not be converted into a preliminary injunction. Judge Levy concluded that the plaintiff established the likelihood of irreparable harm; "confinement at the Calhoun County Correctional Facility renders her substantially likely to contract COVID-19, and Petitioner’s severe health conditions render her substantially likely to suffer irreparable harm or death as a result." Moreover, Judge Levy found that the plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits of her due process claim, stating that the release of the plaintiff was the only reasonable response to the substantial risk to her safety and that continued detention was "both unrelated and contrary to the government purpose of carrying out her removal proceedings." Lastly, Judge Levy concluded that the public interest favored the plaintiff's release because of the risk that her constitutional rights would be deprived absent an injunction and because her release would protect public health. 2020 WL 1672662. (The next day, Judge Levy issued an amended opinion and order adding a term of supervision for the plaintiff's release; "respondents may impose other reasonable nonconfinement terms of supervision.")

On the same day as she granted the first TRO, Judge Levy also granted a motion allowing two individuals to intervene. The intervenors, represented by the ACLU of Michigan and the law firm Paul Weiss, filed an emergency petition for writ of habeas corpus and complaint for injunctive relief, as well as an emergency motion for TRO. Judge Levy issued an order limiting the parties' responses to the intervenors' motion for TRO to whether the reasoning in the Court’s amended order applied to intervenors' motion. In that order, Judge Levy stated that the intervenors' motion raised substantially similar factual and legal issues as the plaintiff's application for TRO.

Following expedited briefing, on April 9, Judge Levy issued an opinion and order granting in part the intervenors' motion for a TRO, requiring that one of the intervenors be immediately released 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, hernia, and prostrate issue. Judge Levy concluded that, although the intervenor presented a less severe risk than the plaintiff who had been granted immediate release, the intervenor was warranted 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

On April 10 the defendants filed their response to the Court's order to show cause as to why the April 5 TRO should not be converted to a preliminary injunction. Defendants argued that "the Court erred in finding a high likelihood of irreparable harm because '[plaintiff] has not shown that she has a substantial risk of exposure to COVID-19 at CCDC.'" Moreover, the defendants asserted that the plaintiff did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits because she “has not shown that Respondent is deliberately indifferent in light of the precautions taken at CCDC to reduce exposure
to COVID-19.” Lastly, the defendants contended that the plaintiff "cannot show that her continued detention amounts to impermissible punishment.”

A week later, on April 17, Judge Levy issued an opinion and order converting the April 5 TRO into 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." 2020 WL 1899570

In their response to the court's order to show cause, the defendants argued that a preliminary injunction was unwarranted with respect to the intervenor because the intervenor had not shown his risk of exposure to COVID-19 sufficiently to state a cognizable constitutional claim and because he had not shown that defendants acted with deliberate indifference. Furthermore, defendants argued that the public interest favors denying injunctive relief because releasing intervenor "would support a finding that it is unconstitutional for ICE to detain any noncitizen during the COVID-19 pandemic."

On April 22, Judge Levy issued an opinion and order converting her second TRO into a preliminary injunction, requiring release to last through the duration of the COVID-19 outbreak. Judge Levy concluded that injunctive relief was appropriate because intervenor had "shown a high likelihood of irreparable injury were he to be returned to the Calhoun County Correctional Facility, both in the form of substantial risk to his health and life from COVID-19 and due to his alleged constitutional violations." Moreover, Judge Levy found that intervenor's "age and mobility limitations place him at a high risk of severe complication and/or death from a COVID-19 infection," thus establishing a high likelihood of success on the merit of his deliberate indifference claim. Last, Judge Levy concluded that granting injunctive relief for this one highly vulnerable individual would not serve as precedent for releasing many non-citizens from immigration detention.

The plaintiffs then submitted yet another motion for a temporary restraining order, which made basically the same complaints as the previous ones. The defendants filed a response to that motion a few days later, and then, on May 12, Judge Levy issued an order partially granting that motion but as a preliminary injunction. She 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. She requested supplemental briefs from both sides, then issued another order on May 23. This second order granted release for two more plaintiffs.

On June 5, the plaintiffs submitted another motion for a TRO, which made the same arguments as the previous complaints, but with regard to different inmates. On June 28 the court granted that motion for all but one of the inmates named in that motion. All together, Judge Levy ordered about a dozen releases.

Meanwhile, on June 14, the plaintiffs also submitted a motion to certify the class. The proposed class was defined as "all noncitizens who are detained in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody at Calhoun." The motion also contained a subclass, defined as "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, the court granted class certification. The order certified a class of noncitizens detained in ICE custody at Calhoun and a habeas subclass of noncitizen detainees in ICE custody at Calhoun who have at least one medical problem that places them at greater risk of serious illness or death.

On August 4, Judge Levy issued an order establishing 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. On August 19, Judge Levy issued an order amending 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 the undersigned." This order was issued 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.

The defendants then filed a motion to amend the June 28 order granting the preliminary injunction that resulted in the release of six medically vulnerable detainees on the basis that a recent Sixth Circuit decision constituted an intervening change in controlling law rendering the decision an error in law. On August 25, Judge Levy issued an opinion and order denying the defendants' motion and holding that the decision was not at odds with the initial order and was not binding precedent because it was an unpublished opinion.

Between September 28 and October 22, 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 Defendants that an additional thirteen detainees and two staff members tested positive for COVID-19 at Calhoun County Correctional Facility, the court held an emergency hearing to hear testimony on the surge in cases and precautionary measures on October 26. On October 27, Judge Levy issued an order requiring the defendants to submit a proposed plan to address the risks to detainees, particularly individuals that have been identified as high-risk detainees. Defendants submitted a response on October 27, highlighting segregated housing, bi-weekly testing, 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. The number of COVID cases among people incarcerated at the facility and the facility's employees increased. As such, because the class members were still being exposed to deliberate-indifference level of harm in the facility, Judge Levy granted the bail applications of eight class members deemed not to be a flight risk on November 30. 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 ordered for an in-person inspection to be conducted by the plaintiff's 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 a pre-existing conditions.

Meanwhile, the defendants appealed to the Sixth Circuit multiple orders granting bail. These appeals remain pending while the case is ongoing.

Aaron Gurley - 04/18/2020
Jack Hibbard - 08/03/2020
Chandler Hart-McGonigle - 11/01/2020
Justin Hill - 01/12/2021


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Content of Injunction
Preliminary relief granted
COVID-19
Release Granted
Release Requested
Defendant-type
Corrections
General
Bathing and hygiene
Conditions of confinement
Habeas Corpus
Over/Unlawful Detention
Placement in detention facilities
Sanitation / living conditions
Totality of conditions
Immigration/Border
Constitutional rights
Detention - conditions
Detention - criteria
Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties
Medical/Mental Health
Medical care, general
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Special Case Type
Habeas
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
Defendant(s) Attorney General of the United States
Michigan Department of Corrections
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Plaintiff Description All noncitizens detained in ICE custody at Calhoun; subclasses are those with COVID-19 risk factors; noncitizens formerly detained at the Calhoun County Correctional Facility and released as a result of an order issued by the court
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU Affiliates (any)
ACLU of Michigan
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status outcome Granted
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Habeas relief
Source of Relief Litigation
Order Duration 2020 - n/a
Filed 03/30/2020
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at CourtListener.com (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
  Malam v. Adducci
https://www.aclu.org/
Date: Apr. 13, 2020
By: ACLU
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Court Docket(s)
E.D. Mich.
11/01/2020
5:20-cv-10829
IM-MI-0006-9000.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
E.D. Mich.
03/30/2020
Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [ECF# 87, 87-1, 87-2 & 87-4]
IM-MI-0006-0014.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
04/05/2020
Opinion and Order Granting in Part Petitioner's Emergency Application for a Temporary Restraining Order [ECF# 22] (2020 WL 1672662)
IM-MI-0006-0001.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
04/05/2020
[Declarations in Support of ecf 20 Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order] [ECF# 73 & 73-1]
IM-MI-0006-0008.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
04/08/2020
Plaintiff-Intervenors' Reply Brief in Further Support of their Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order [ECF# 74]
IM-MI-0006-0009.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
04/09/2020
Opinion and Order Granting in Part Plaintiff-Intervenors' Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order [20] [ECF# 29] (2020 WL 1809675)
IM-MI-0006-0002.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
04/17/2020
Opinion and Order Converting Temporary Restraining Order into Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 33] (2020 WL 1899570)
IM-MI-0006-0003.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
04/22/2020
Opinion and Order Converting Temporary Restraining Order into Preliminary Injunction [29] [ECF# 41] (2020 WL 1934895)
IM-MI-0006-0004.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
04/25/2020
[Declarations in Support of ecf 44 Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order] [ECF# 77 & 77-1 to 77-6]
IM-MI-0006-0011.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
04/26/2020
Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [ECF# 76]
IM-MI-0006-0010.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
05/12/2020
Opinion and Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order as a Preliminary Injunction [44] [ECF# 68] (2020 WL 2468481)
IM-MI-0006-0006.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
05/15/2020
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Complaint for Injunctive Relief [ECF# 72]
IM-MI-0006-0007.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
05/18/2020
Respondents Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Petitioners' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [ECF# 80 & 80-1 to 80-3]
IM-MI-0006-0012.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
05/18/2020
Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief in Further Support of their Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order [ECF# 82 & 82-1 to 82-8]
IM-MI-0006-0013.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
05/23/2020
Second Opinion and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order as a Preliminary Injunction [44] [ECF# 90] (2020 WL 2616242)
IM-MI-0006-0015.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
06/05/2020
Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Complaint for Injunctive Relief [ECF# 97]
IM-MI-0006-0016.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
06/05/2020
Petitioner-Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [ECF# 98 & 98-1 to 98-12]
IM-MI-0006-0017.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
06/10/2020
Respondents' Response in Opposition to Petitioners' Fourth Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [ECF# 101 & 101-1 to 101-11]
IM-MI-0006-0018.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
06/14/2020
Petitioners-Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification [ECF# 112 & 112-1 to 112-4]
IM-MI-0006-0019.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
06/15/2020
Plaintiffs Waad Barash, Leneche Krcoska, Yohandry Ley Santana, Sergio Perez Pavon, Johanna Whernman, and William Whernman's Reply Brief in Support of their Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [ECF# 117 & 117-1 & 117-6]
IM-MI-0006-0020.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
06/28/2020
Opinion and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order as Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 127] (2020 WL 3512850)
IM-MI-0006-0005.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
07/01/2020
Motion to Intervene by Non-Parties Zaid Shaher Mohammad Al-Araj, Ahammad Ali, Ziggy Marcus Garvie, Juan Guerrero Bernardez, Gan Jin, Tauqir Niazi and Pedro Quijada [ECF# 130 & 130-1 to 130-16]
IM-MI-0006-0021.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
07/15/2020
Defendants' Response in Opposition to Second Motion to Intervene [ECF# 152 & 152-1]
IM-MI-0006-0022.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
07/22/2020
Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Intervene by Nonparties Zaid Shaher Mohammad Al-Araj, Ahammad Ali, Ziggy Marcus Garvie, Juan Guerrero Bernardez, Gan Jin, and Tauqir Niazi [ECF# 155 & 155-1 to 155-3]
IM-MI-0006-0023.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
07/27/2020
Defendants' Motion to Amend Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) [ECF# 158]
IM-MI-0006-0024.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
07/28/2020
Amended Order Requiring Response [158] [ECF# 160]
IM-MI-0006-0025.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
07/31/2020
Opinion and Order Certifying Class and Habeas Litigation Group [112] [ECF# 162] (2020 WL 4391314)
IM-MI-0006-0026.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
08/04/2020
Order Establishing Bail Hearing Procedures [ECF# 168]
IM-MI-0006-0027.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
08/19/2020
Order Amending General Class and Habeas Litigation Group Definitions [ECF# 162] (2020 WL 4818894)
IM-MI-0006-0028.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
08/25/2020
Opinion and Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Amend Judgment [ECF# 212] (2020 WL 5028654)
IM-MI-0006-0029.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
09/28/2020
Fifth Order on Bail [ECF# 300]
IM-MI-0006-0030.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
10/02/2020
Sixth Order on Bail [ECF# 305] (2020 WL 5891394)
IM-MI-0006-0031.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
10/13/2020
Seventh Order on Bail [ECF# 330] (2020 WL 6047174)
IM-MI-0006-0032.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
10/22/2020
Eighth Order on Bail [ECF# 346]
IM-MI-0006-0033.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
10/28/2020
Petitioners-Plaintiffs' Motion for Emergency Relief to Respond to COVID-19 Outbreak [ECF# 373]
IM-MI-0006-0034.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
11/06/2020
Supplemental Brief in Support of Petitioner-Plaintiffs' Motion for Emergency Relief to Respond to COVID-19 Outbreak [ECF# 400]
IM-MI-0006-0035.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
11/30/2020
Ninth Order on Bail [316, 327, 333, 350, 353, 362, 364, 371, 372, 405] [ECF# 430] (2020 WL 7027435)
IM-MI-0006-0037.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
12/10/2020
Tenth Order on Bail [416] [ECF# 455] (2020 WL 7264756)
IM-MI-0006-0038.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
01/07/2021
Expert Report on Facility Inspection [ECF# 483 & 483-1 to 483-4]
IM-MI-0006-0036.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Levy, Judith Ellen (E.D. Mich.) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-0001 | IM-MI-0006-0002 | IM-MI-0006-0003 | IM-MI-0006-0004 | IM-MI-0006-0005 | IM-MI-0006-0006 | IM-MI-0006-0015 | IM-MI-0006-0025 | IM-MI-0006-0026 | IM-MI-0006-0027 | IM-MI-0006-0028 | IM-MI-0006-0029 | IM-MI-0006-0030 | IM-MI-0006-0031 | IM-MI-0006-0032 | IM-MI-0006-0033 | IM-MI-0006-0037 | IM-MI-0006-0038 | IM-MI-0006-9000
Patti, Anthony P. Court not on record [Magistrate] show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Andrade, Monica (Michigan) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-0007 | IM-MI-0006-0009 | IM-MI-0006-0010 | IM-MI-0006-0013 | IM-MI-0006-0016 | IM-MI-0006-0017 | IM-MI-0006-0019 | IM-MI-0006-0020 | IM-MI-0006-0021 | IM-MI-0006-0023 | IM-MI-0006-0034 | IM-MI-0006-0035 | IM-MI-0006-0036 | IM-MI-0006-9000
Atiya, Shahad (Michigan) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-0021
Aukerman, Miriam (Michigan) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-0007 | IM-MI-0006-0009 | IM-MI-0006-0010 | IM-MI-0006-0013 | IM-MI-0006-0016 | IM-MI-0006-0017 | IM-MI-0006-0019 | IM-MI-0006-0020 | IM-MI-0006-0021 | IM-MI-0006-0023 | IM-MI-0006-0034 | IM-MI-0006-0035 | IM-MI-0006-0036 | IM-MI-0006-9000
Balakrishnan, Anand V. (New York) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-0007 | IM-MI-0006-0009 | IM-MI-0006-0010 | IM-MI-0006-0013 | IM-MI-0006-0016 | IM-MI-0006-0017 | IM-MI-0006-0019 | IM-MI-0006-0020 | IM-MI-0006-0021 | IM-MI-0006-0023 | IM-MI-0006-0034 | IM-MI-0006-0035 | IM-MI-0006-0036
Cho, Eunice (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-0007 | IM-MI-0006-0009 | IM-MI-0006-0010 | IM-MI-0006-0013 | IM-MI-0006-0016 | IM-MI-0006-0017 | IM-MI-0006-0019 | IM-MI-0006-0020 | IM-MI-0006-0021 | IM-MI-0006-0023 | IM-MI-0006-0034 | IM-MI-0006-0035 | IM-MI-0006-0036 | IM-MI-0006-9000
Fathi, David Cyrus (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-0007 | IM-MI-0006-0009 | IM-MI-0006-0010 | IM-MI-0006-0013 | IM-MI-0006-0016 | IM-MI-0006-0017 | IM-MI-0006-0019 | IM-MI-0006-0020 | IM-MI-0006-0021 | IM-MI-0006-0023 | IM-MI-0006-0034 | IM-MI-0006-0035 | IM-MI-0006-0036 | IM-MI-0006-9000
Fiorill, Rachel M (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-0007 | IM-MI-0006-0009 | IM-MI-0006-0010 | IM-MI-0006-0013 | IM-MI-0006-0016 | IM-MI-0006-0017 | IM-MI-0006-0019 | IM-MI-0006-0020 | IM-MI-0006-0021 | IM-MI-0006-0023 | IM-MI-0006-0034 | IM-MI-0006-0035 | IM-MI-0006-0036 | IM-MI-0006-9000
Gadsden, Katherin W (New York) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-0010 | IM-MI-0006-0013 | IM-MI-0006-0016 | IM-MI-0006-0017 | IM-MI-0006-0019 | IM-MI-0006-0021 | IM-MI-0006-0023 | IM-MI-0006-0034 | IM-MI-0006-0035 | IM-MI-0006-0036 | IM-MI-0006-9000
Garbacik, Rosana Santana Moura (Michigan) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-0014 | IM-MI-0006-9000
Gardner, Darren S (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-0021 | IM-MI-0006-0034 | IM-MI-0006-0035 | IM-MI-0006-0036 | IM-MI-0006-9000
Granzotto, Joe (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-0021 | IM-MI-0006-9000
Jadwat, Omar C. (New York) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-0007 | IM-MI-0006-0009 | IM-MI-0006-0010 | IM-MI-0006-0013 | IM-MI-0006-0016 | IM-MI-0006-0017 | IM-MI-0006-0019 | IM-MI-0006-0020 | IM-MI-0006-0021 | IM-MI-0006-0023 | IM-MI-0006-0034 | IM-MI-0006-0035 | IM-MI-0006-0036
Jaffe, Peter (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-0007 | IM-MI-0006-0009 | IM-MI-0006-0010 | IM-MI-0006-0013 | IM-MI-0006-0016 | IM-MI-0006-0017 | IM-MI-0006-0019 | IM-MI-0006-0020 | IM-MI-0006-0021 | IM-MI-0006-0023 | IM-MI-0006-0034 | IM-MI-0006-0035 | IM-MI-0006-0036
Korobkin, Daniel S. (Michigan) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-0007 | IM-MI-0006-0009 | IM-MI-0006-0010 | IM-MI-0006-0013 | IM-MI-0006-0016 | IM-MI-0006-0017 | IM-MI-0006-0019 | IM-MI-0006-0020 | IM-MI-0006-0021 | IM-MI-0006-0023 | IM-MI-0006-0034 | IM-MI-0006-0035 | IM-MI-0006-0036 | IM-MI-0006-9000
Lawyer, Stanton (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-9000
Lewis, Ayesha Elaine (Michigan) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-0007 | IM-MI-0006-0010 | IM-MI-0006-0013 | IM-MI-0006-0016 | IM-MI-0006-0017 | IM-MI-0006-0019 | IM-MI-0006-0020 | IM-MI-0006-0021 | IM-MI-0006-0023
Mendelsohn, Mark (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-0007 | IM-MI-0006-0009 | IM-MI-0006-0010 | IM-MI-0006-0013 | IM-MI-0006-0016 | IM-MI-0006-0017 | IM-MI-0006-0019 | IM-MI-0006-0020 | IM-MI-0006-0021 | IM-MI-0006-0023 | IM-MI-0006-0034 | IM-MI-0006-0035 | IM-MI-0006-0036 | IM-MI-0006-9000
Ngo, My Khanh (California) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-0007 | IM-MI-0006-0009 | IM-MI-0006-0010 | IM-MI-0006-0013 | IM-MI-0006-0016 | IM-MI-0006-0017 | IM-MI-0006-0019 | IM-MI-0006-0021 | IM-MI-0006-0023 | IM-MI-0006-0034 | IM-MI-0006-0035 | IM-MI-0006-0036 | IM-MI-0006-9000
O'Loughlin, Robert Joseph III (New York) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-0016 | IM-MI-0006-0017
Palmer, Breanne J (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-0021 | IM-MI-0006-9000
Rhee, Jeannie S. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-0007 | IM-MI-0006-0009 | IM-MI-0006-0010 | IM-MI-0006-0013 | IM-MI-0006-0016 | IM-MI-0006-0017 | IM-MI-0006-0019 | IM-MI-0006-0020 | IM-MI-0006-0021 | IM-MI-0006-0023 | IM-MI-0006-0034 | IM-MI-0006-0035 | IM-MI-0006-0036 | IM-MI-0006-9000
Robinson, Edward (New York) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-0020
Shik, Oleg (New York) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-0016 | IM-MI-0006-0017 | IM-MI-0006-0019 | IM-MI-0006-0020 | IM-MI-0006-0021 | IM-MI-0006-0023 | IM-MI-0006-0034 | IM-MI-0006-0035 | IM-MI-0006-0036 | IM-MI-0006-9000
Silberstein-Loeb, Jonathan M (New York) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-0007 | IM-MI-0006-0009 | IM-MI-0006-0010 | IM-MI-0006-0013 | IM-MI-0006-0016 | IM-MI-0006-0017 | IM-MI-0006-0019 | IM-MI-0006-0020 | IM-MI-0006-0021 | IM-MI-0006-0023 | IM-MI-0006-0034 | IM-MI-0006-0035 | IM-MI-0006-0036 | IM-MI-0006-9000
Stacer, Andrew D (Michigan) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-0014 | IM-MI-0006-9000
Tan, Michael K. T. (New York) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-0007 | IM-MI-0006-0009 | IM-MI-0006-0010 | IM-MI-0006-0013 | IM-MI-0006-0016 | IM-MI-0006-0017 | IM-MI-0006-0019 | IM-MI-0006-0020 | IM-MI-0006-0021 | IM-MI-0006-0023 | IM-MI-0006-0034 | IM-MI-0006-0035 | IM-MI-0006-0036
Defendant's Lawyers Darling, Bradley (Michigan) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-9000
Hirst, Kevin (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-9000
Newby, Jennifer L. (Michigan) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-0012 | IM-MI-0006-0018 | IM-MI-0006-0022 | IM-MI-0006-0024 | IM-MI-0006-9000
Schneider, Matthew J (Michigan) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-0022 | IM-MI-0006-0024
Other Lawyers Cummings, Sheila (Michigan) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0006-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -