Malam v. Adducci
| Decision Date | 23 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 20-10829 |
| Parties | Janet Malam, Petitioner-Plaintiff, and Qaid Alhalmi, et al., Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. Rebecca Adducci, et al., Respondent-Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Mag. Judge Anthony P. Patti
[458, 461, 463]
Between December 11, 2020 and December 15, 2020, Plaintiffs submitted bail applications for habeas litigation group members Andrei Skripkov, Manuel Castillo-Torres, and Nicholas Yearsley. (ECF Nos. 458, 461, 463.) Between December 16, 2020 and December 18, 2020, Defendants filed responses. (ECF Nos. 464, 466, 467.) Between December 18, 2020 and December 21, 2020, Plaintiffs filed replies. (ECF Nos. 469-471.)
After reviewing the application and briefing, the Court grants bail for group members Skripkov, Castillo-Torres, and Yearsley.
The Sixth Circuit has recognized the district court's "inherent authority" to grant a habeas petitioner release on bail pending adjudication of the petition's merits. Nash v. Eberlin, 437 F.3d 519, 526 n.10 (6th Cir. 2006). "The district court may release petitioners on bail if there is a 'substantial claim of law' and the existence of 'some circumstance making [the motion for bail] exceptional and deserving of special treatment in the interests of justice.'" Id. (citing Lee v. Jabe, 989 F.2d 869, 871 (6th Cir. 1993)).
On November 30, 2020, the Court found that "[t]he habeas litigation group members continue to raise substantial claims of law" because group members "continue to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their due process claim challenging their continued detention at CCCF during the COVID-19 pandemic." (ECF No. 430, PageID.11345, 11348.) Additionally, the Court found that "COVID-19 presents special circumstances making the bail applications exceptional." (Id. at PageID.5295.) Over approximately the last month, Calhoun CountyCorrectional Facility ("CCCF") has been in a COVID-19 outbreak. (See ECF Nos. 365, 388.) As of December 15, 2020, a total of 67 detainees and inmates, as well as six staff members, have tested positive for COVID-19. (See ECF No. 450, PageID.11576 (); ECF No. 463, PageID.11871 ().)
The Court continues to find that these group members raise substantial claims of law and that COVID-19 presents special circumstances making the bail applications exceptional. The Court will continue to evaluate individual bail applications conditionally while awaiting the reports from the expert inspections of CCCF that took place on December 17, 2020.
The Court makes the following findings with respect to individual bail applications:
Andrei Skripkov (ECF No. 458)
Plaintiffs allege that Skripkov has lived in the United States for approximately two years and has no criminal history in the United Statessince his arrival from Russia. (ECF No. 458, PageID.11724, 11726.) Plaintiffs acknowledge that after Skripkov left Russia, the Russian government issued an indictment against Skripkov under Article 212.1 of the Russian Federation Criminal Code. (Id. at PageID.11725.) When considering Skripkov's appeal of the denial of his asylum application by an Immigration Judge and the dismissal of his appeal by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Article 212.1 "penalizes protest activity that is not approved through government channels." Skripkov v. Barr, 966 F.3d 480, 489 (6th Cir. 2020). Furthermore, the Sixth Circuit found that "both the context and substance of Skripkov's threatened prosecution under Article 212.1 appear to be pretextual, thus crossing the line from prosecution to persecution" with reference to Skripkov's anticorruption political opinion and his public role in peaceful anticorruption activities. Id. at 489-491. According to Plaintiffs, Skripkov's asylum application is now pending before the immigration court and he has no final order of removal. (ECF No. 458, PageID.11722, 11725.) Plaintiffs argue that Skripkov is not a flight risk due to his fear of "retaliation and harassment from corrupt Russian authorities" in response to Skripkov's anticorruption activism,as well as his family's own strong incentive to remain in the United States based on their derivative applications for asylum. (Id. at PageID.11722-11723.) If released, Skripkov will reside with his wife and son in Saint Petersburg, Florida. (Id. at PageID.11725.)
Defendants argue that Skripkov poses a flight risk. (ECF No. 464, PageID.11935.) Specifically, Defendants contend that Skripkov does not have any ties to the United States and they claim that he previously used a driver's license obtained using fraudulent means to work as a truck driver. (Id.) Defendants do not argue that Skripkov would be a danger to the community. (Id.)
Plaintiffs reply to challenge Defendants' assertion that Skripkov lacks a connection to the United States. (ECF No. 469, PageID.11973.) Plaintiffs note that Skripkov's wife and son have lived in Florida since the family arrived in the United States in 2018 and that the family is represented by counsel through their immigration proceedings; Plaintiffs claim both factors provide a strong incentive for Skripkov not to abscond. (Id. at PageID.11973-11974.) Additionally, while Plaintiffs acknowledge that Skripkov worked as a truck driver without authorization for approximately one-and-a-half months in 2018, they allege that helawfully obtained a Florida driver's license to cover the initial length of his stay. (Id. at PageID.11974.)
The Court finds that Skripkov does not pose a flight risk and is not a danger to the community given his proposed release plan. The Court recognizes that Skripkov's release plan involves his release into the custody of an individual who is not the custodian listed in the bail request, and approves the alternative arrangements as set forth in Skripkov's bail application. Accordingly, Skripkov's application for bail is granted.
Manuel Castillo-Torres (ECF No. 461)
Plaintiffs allege that Castillo-Torres has lived in the United States for approximately 30 years and has not been charged with, or convicted of, any violent crime. (ECF No. 461, PageID.11774.) Plaintiffs acknowledge that Castillo-Torres was convicted of misdemeanor driving with a blood alcohol content over 0.08 in addition to conspiracy with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine. (Id. at PageID.11777.) However, Plaintiffs also indicate that Castillo-Torres cooperated with the government following his arrest for the conspiracy conviction, ultimately providing substantial assistance to law enforcement in theirinvestigation of the greater drug trafficking operation in which Castillo-Torres was a participant. (Id. at PageID.11774, 11777.) Plaintiffs further allege that Castillo-Torres is in the process of seeking relief from removal under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT") based on his fear of torture or persecution if returned to Mexico as a result of this cooperation with law enforcement. (Id. at PageID.11775-11776.) Additionally, Plaintiffs highlight Castillo-Torres' participation in years of rehabilitative classes and programs during his incarceration, his employment in the prison kitchen, and his active engagement in prison religious life. (Id. at PageID.11774.) Castillo-Torres will reside with his wife and his son in Phoenix, Arizona, if released. (Id. at PageID.11778-11779.)
Defendants argue that Castillo-Torres is a danger to the community because of his involvement in the drug trafficking operation leading to his conspiracy conviction. (ECF No. 466, PageID.11942.) Defendants note that Castillo-Torres' assistance in law enforcement's investigation of the drug trafficking scheme following Castillo-Torres' arrest benefited Castillo-Torres in the form of a reduced sentence; Defendants allege there is "no indication [Castillo-Torres] had any intention of withdrawing fromthe operation prior to his arrest." (Id.) Defendants' argument implies that Castillo-Torres may be inclined to engage in similar conduct as that underlying his conspiracy conviction were he to be released. (Id.) Additionally, Defendants argue that "supporting the drug trafficking industry contributes to the well-known atmosphere of violence associated with the illegal drug trade that decimates communities." (Id. at PageID.11942-11943.) Defendants claim that the atmosphere of violence associated with drug trafficking serves as the rationale behind Congress' determination that individuals with convictions such as Castillo-Torres' should be subject to mandatory detention. (Id.) Defendants do not contend that Castillo-Torres is a flight risk. (Id.)
Plaintiffs reply that there is no statutory presumption of danger for individuals held under mandatory detention. (ECF No. 471, PageID.11981.) Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants do not designate how Castillo-Torres' role in the drug trafficking operation—provision of a venue for drug distribution—implicates him in any individual acts of violence. (Id. at PageID.11981-11982.) Additionally, Plaintiffs argue that there is significant evidence suggesting that Castillo-Torres will not reoffend if released: (1) he has not had any contact with anyone involvedin the trafficking operation since his arrest; (2) he provided information to law enforcement regarding the operation despite his own personal risk; and (3) reoffending would jeopardize his efforts to obtain immigration relief under the CAT. (Id. at PageID.11982.)
The Court finds that Castillo-Torres does not pose a flight risk and is not a danger to the community given the incentives set forth in Plaintiffs' reply brief and his proposed release plan. However, Castillo-Torres will be...
To continue reading
Request your trial