Albino-Martinez v. Adducci

• Decision Date: 14 April 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:20-cv-10893
• Citation: 454 F.Supp.3d 642
• Parties: Reynaldo ALBINO-MARTINEZ, et al., Petitioners, v. Rebecca ADDUCCI, et al., Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

454 F.Supp.3d 642

Reynaldo ALBINO-MARTINEZ, et al., Petitioners,

v.Rebecca ADDUCCI, et al., Respondents.

Case No. 2:20-cv-10893

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

Signed April 14, 2020

Daniel S. Korobkin, Monica Cesilia Andrade, American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, Detroit, MI, Miriam J. Aukerman, American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan West Michigan Regional Office, Grand Rapids, MI, Jeannie S. Rhee, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Washington, DC, for Petitioners.

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER [2] AND GRANTING PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXCESS PAGES [12]

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III, United States District Judge

On April 7, 2020, Petitioners filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus ("Petition") and argued that they are being held in violation of their Fifth Amendment rights and that Petitioner Chinchilla-Flores is being held in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6). ECF 1. Petitioners then filed the present emergency motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") related to their Fifth Amendment claim and argued that the Court should order their immediate release. ECF 2. The Court reviewed the briefs and finds that a hearing is unnecessary.¹ See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2). For the following reasons, the Court will deny Petitioners' emergency motion for a temporary restraining order.

BACKGROUND

Petitioners are five immigrant detainees—non-United States citizens detained by the federal government for violating United States immigration laws—currently held at the Monroe County Jail ("Monroe") and the St. Clair County Jail ("St. Clair"). ECF 1, PgID 6. Respondents include the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), Attorney General William Barr, Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Chad Wolf, and two ICE officials—Rebecca Adducci and Matthew T. Albence. Id. at 11–12. Petitioners alleged that they are particularly vulnerable to the current COVID-19 pandemic because they have certain pre-existing health conditions. See id. at 23–27. Respondents denied that Petitioners are high risk individuals. ECF 10, PgID 252–58. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, Petitioners alleged that their detention violates their Fifth Amendment due process rights. Petitioners therefore requested that the Court issue a TRO and require Respondents to release them immediately. See ECF 2.

LEGAL STANDARD

"Temporary restraining orders ... are extraordinary remedies which should be granted only if the movant carries his burden of proving that the circumstances clearly demand it." Barron v. PGA Tour, Inc. , 670 F. Supp.2d 674, 682 (W.D. Tenn. 2009) (citation and quotation omitted). The purpose of a TRO "is to preserve the status quo so that a reasoned resolution of a dispute may be had." Procter & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust Co., 78 F.3d 219, 226 (6th Cir. 1996). A TRO that requests an affirmative act, like the one Petitioners request here, is "tantamount to a mandatory injunction [and] requires a higher—yet undefined—burden to issue than required of an order merely preserving the status quo." Shelby Cty. Advocates for Valid Elections v. Hargett , 348 F. Supp. 3d 764, 769 (W.D. Tenn. 2018) (citing Hill v. Snyder , No. 16-2003, 2016 WL 4046827, at *1–*2 (6th Cir. July 20, 2016) ; Ne. Ohio Coal. for Homeless and Serv. Emp. Int'l Union, Local 1199 v. Blackwell , 467 F.3d 999, 1006 (6th Cir. 2006) ).

When determining whether to issue a TRO, the Court looks at: "(1) whether the movant has a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury absent a stay, (3) whether granting the stay would cause substantial harm to others, and (4) whether the public interest would be served by granting the" motion. Blackwell , 467 F.3d at 1009. The factors are "interrelated considerations that must be balanced together." Id. (citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

I. Jurisdiction

The habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, affirmatively grants the Court the power "to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners being held in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." Rice v. White , 660 F.3d 242, 249 (6th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Because Petitioners alleged constitutional and federal statutory violations, § 2241 is the proper avenue for their claims, and the Court has jurisdiction over the Petition.

II. Briefing on the Motion

As an initial matter, the Court will address the various briefings submitted on the present motion for a TRO. On April 10, 2020, Respondents promptly responded to the motion for a TRO. ECF 10. Petitioners then filed a 21-page reply and an unopposed motion for leave to file excess pages. ECF 11, 12. The Court will grant Petitioner's motion and will consider their entire reply brief.

Immediately after Petitioners filed their reply, Respondents filed a sur-reply. ECF 13. "Parties do not have a right to file a surreply brief under the federal procedural rules or the local rules."

Nett v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg. Inc. , No. 10-15058, 2011 WL 1519166, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 20, 2011) (citing Jones v. Northcoast Behavioral Healthcare Sys. , 84 F. App'x 597, 599 (6th Cir. 2003) ; LaSalle Nat'l Bank Ass'n v. Wonderland Shopping Ctr. Venture Ltd. P'ship , 223 F. Supp. 2d 806, 808 n.1 (E.D. Mich. 2002) ); see also Washington v. City of Detroit , No. 05-CV-72433, 2007 WL 788902, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 14, 2007) (explaining that a sur-reply "is not contemplated by Local Rule 7.1 under normal circumstances."). Parties must first seek leave to file a sur-reply. Nett , 2011 WL 1519166, at *3 ; Fox v. Riverdeep, Inc. , No. 07-13622, 2009 WL 1506670, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Mich. May 26, 2009). Respondents failed to seek leave to file their sur-reply. The Court will therefore strike the sur-reply and will not consider it.

Finally, shortly after the above sur-reply was filed, Petitioners filed a declaration by Miguel Angel Aparicio Navas. ECF 14. The Court construes Petitioners' declaration to be a reply to Respondents' sur-reply. ECF 13. For the same reasons as Respondents' sur-reply was stricken, the Court will also strike Petitioners' declaration and will not consider it in its determination of the TRO motion on its merits.

III. Temporary Restraining Order

To succeed on their motion for a TRO, Petitioners must persuade the Court that, taken together, the four factors set forth above weigh in favor of granting the extraordinary remedy. See, e.g., Blackwell , 467 F.3d at 1009. The Court will address each factor in turn, taking into consideration the higher burden Petitioners bear due to the nature of their requested TRO. See Hargett , 348 F. Supp. 3d at 769.

A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

Petitioners alleged that Respondents are subjecting them "to a substantial risk of serious harm, in violation of" their Fifth Amendment due process rights. ECF 1, PgID 41–42.² It is well established that "[t]he Fifth Amendment prohibits punishment of pretrial detainees," Watkins v. City of Battle Creek , 273 F.3d 682, 686 (6th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted), and "immigration detainees are entitled the same due process protections" as pretrial detainees, E.D. v. Sharkey, 928 F.3d 299, 306–07 (3d Cir. 2019) (collecting cases). Petitioners, as immigrant detainees, are therefore entitled to Fifth Amendment due process protections. Here, though, because Petitioners asserted "claims relating to health concerns," their claims are more properly analyzed under the Eighth Amendment standard of Roberts and Estelle. See Al-Sadoon v. Adducci , No. 20-10699, 453 F.Supp.3d 1045, 1049 (E.D. Mich. April 9, 2020) (citing Watkins v. City of Battle Creek , 273 F.3d 682, 685–86 (6th Cir. 2001) ).

To succeed on an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim, detainees must satisfy both objective and subjective components. Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). Petitioners may satisfy the objective component by showing that "absent reasonable precautions, [they are] exposed to a substantial risk of serious harm." Richko v. Wayne Cty., Mich., 819 F.3d 907, 915 (6th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).

To satisfy the subjective component, Petitioners must show that the officials "being sued subjectively perceived facts from which to infer a subjective risk to the prisoner," that the officials "did in fact draw the inference," and "the official[s] then disregarded that risk." Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted).

First, Petitioners failed to show that they are objectively "exposed to a substantial risk of serious harm" Id. The Court is aware of the extent of the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact that it has had throughout Michigan and the United States. But detention centers throughout the country "are implementing health organizations['] recommendations for preventing the spread of the coronavirus." United States v. Taylor , No. 5:19-CR-192-KKC-MAS, 449 F.Supp.3d 668, 675 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 26, 2020). And Petitioners have not shown that the Monroe or St. Clair detention facilities are unable "to manage the outbreak or adequately treat [them] should it emerge at" their detention centers while they are still incarcerated. Id. (quoting United States v. Gileno , No. 3:19-cr-161-VAB-1, 2020 WL 1307108, at *4 (D. Conn. Mar. 19, 2020) ).

The exhibits to the Petition included numerous general articles and press releases that discussed the spread of COVID-19, the policies certain jails and prisons have implemented in response to COVID-19, and policies certain courts have implemented to release inmates, none of which the Court found particularly helpful when analyzing Petitioners' claims. See generally ECF 2-4. Petitioners also attached declarations by medical doctors that discussed the danger COVID-19 poses in jails and detention facilities and that ICE detention facilities are not prepared for COVID-19 and lack adequate procedures and equipment....