Sacal-Micha v. Longoria
| Decision Date | 09 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-37 |
| Parties | JAIME SACAL-MICHA, Petitioner, v. JOSE GARCIA LONGORIA JR, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
On March 22, 2020, Petitioner Jaime Sacal-Micha filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Doc. 1), requesting that the Court order his immediate release from immigration detention pending the resolution of his proceedings under the United Nations Convention Against Torture.1 Sacal is elderly and has serious underlying medical conditions. He seeks release based on the possibility of a COVID-19 outbreak within the detention center in which he is being held, and the Respondents' alleged inability to protect him from contracting the virus or providing him with adequate medical attention should he do so.
On March 27, 2020, the Court denied Sacal's request for a temporary restraining order, concluding that he had not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, or on his cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act. (Doc. 17)
On April 2, 2020, Sacal filed his First Amended Petition, amending his claims and re-urging his request for immediate release. (Doc. 31) On the same day, Respondents filed their Motion to Dismiss, seeking dismissal of all of Sacal's causes of action. (Doc. 26) Given the nature of the allegations and the requested relief, the Court imposed an expedited briefing schedule regarding the Motion to Dismiss.
For the following reasons, the Court finds Respondents' Motion well taken.
Sacal is a sixty-nine-year-old wealthy Mexican citizen with significant real estate holdings. He claims he fled Mexico due to false criminal charges levied against him, accusing him of sexually assaulting one of his granddaughters. (First Am. Pet., Doc. 31, ¶¶ 9-12) The Mexican government issued an arrest warrant for Sacal, and that warrant remains outstanding. (Id.) Sacal vehemently denies that he committed the alleged crime. He hid in Mexico for a year while his lawyers fought the charges, but eventually he decided to leave his country and fight from afar, fearing that his arrest in Mexico would place him at risk of torture and death in prison. (Id. at ¶ 12)
On December 2, 2019, he presented himself at a United States port of entry and sought admission with his nonimmigrant visa. (Id. at ¶ 5) The inspecting officer with United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) determined that the United States Department of State had revoked Sacal's visa based on the outstanding Mexican arrest warrant. (Id. at ¶ 12) CBP issued Sacal a Notice of Expedited Removal, charging him as inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). As Sacal had expressed a fear of return to Mexico, he was transferred to the custody of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which detained him at the Port Isabel Detention Center (PIDC). (Notice of Expedited Removal, Doc. 9-3; Record of Determination/Credible Fear Worksheet, Doc. 9-4)
On December 6, an Asylum Officer interviewed Sacal and concluded that he did not present a credible fear of persecution or torture if returned to Mexico. (First Am. Pet., Doc. 31, ¶¶ 5, 15) Sacal sought review by an Immigration Judge, who vacated the Asylum Officer's decision and placed Sacal in regular removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. (Record ofNegative Credible Fear Finding/Request for IJ Review, Doc. 9-5; Credible Fear Review Proceedings Order of the Immigration Judge, Doc. 27) The Immigration Judge found Sacal eligible to apply for relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). (First Am. Pet., Doc. 31, ¶ 5)
Sacal then requested that ICE release him pending his CAT proceedings. (Emails, Doc. 2, 11-12) On February 11, 2020, ICE decided to not release Sacal based on two key findings, both premised on the outstanding arrest warrant. First, ICE concluded that Sacal represented a danger to the community. (Record of Determination, Doc. 9-8, 4) Second, the outstanding arrest warrant created "exceptional, overriding factors (e.g., law enforcement interests or potential foreign policy consequences)" that precluded release. (ICE Decision Ltr., Doc. 9-8, 2)
On March 18, 2020, Sacal's counsel again requested that ICE release him due to his poor health and the COVID-19 pandemic. (Emails, Doc. 2, 2) Sacal's counsel noted that the CAT proceedings would continue for many months, and that Sacal suffers from serious medical conditions. (Id.; see also Sacal's Medical Records, Doc. 11-1 ()) Two days later, after an exchange of communications and information, ICE again denied the request: "We have carefully considered your request, and based on the totality of the facts in this case, [] we are denying your request at this time." (First Am. Pet., Doc. 31, ¶ 18)
Since his arrival at PIDC, Sacal has been held in the infirmary due to his failing health. (Id. at ¶ 5) Sacal does not allege that he has received inadequate care for his underlying medical conditions.
Sacal alleges that ICE officials are not implementing sufficient measures to prevent his exposure to COVID-19. For example, in his Response, he emphasizes that Respondents are "not even attempting to enforce 'social distancing' or the universal use of masks and gloves". (Response, Doc. 34, 17) Sacal himself has submitted a declaration identifying various alleged inadequacies, including: PIDC allowing "the sick and those who are not sick" to handle and take toiletries from the same box; officials denying his request for wipes to disinfect a phone used byother detainees or his eating area; and facility employees not uniformly using N95 face masks. (Sacal Decl., Doc. 25) Sacal's counsel also affies that PIDC does not check employee's temperatures when they enter the facility. (Diez Decl., Doc. 25)3 Sacal alleges that these inadequacies place his life in "grave danger". (First Am. Pet., Doc. 31, ¶ 22)
"Motions filed under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a party to challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court to hear a case." Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1)). Federal district courts are of limited jurisdiction and may hear only those cases authorized by a federal statute, the Constitution or a United States treaty. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001). "The burden of proof for a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is on the party asserting jurisdiction." Ramming, 281 F.3d at 161. "Accordingly, the plaintiff constantly bears the burden of proof that jurisdiction does in fact exist." Id.
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A plaintiff's complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, but it must set forth "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. These allegations, assuming they are true, "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id.
In his First Amended Petition, Sacal includes his petition for writ of habeas corpus, as well as causes of action under the Administrative Procedure Act, "directly under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, (unconstitutional conditions of confinement)", and in equity. (First Am. Pet., Doc. 31, 1)4
An individual may seek habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 if he is "in custody" under federal authority "in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). The "sole function" of a habeas petition is to "grant relief from unlawful imprisonment or custody." Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933, 935-36 (5th Cir. 1976). The Fifth Circuit follows a bright-line rule: "If a favorable determination . . . would not automatically entitle [the detainee] to accelerated release, . . . the proper vehicle is a [civil rights] suit." Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 820-21 (5th Cir. 1997) (internal citations omitted).
Sacal does not allege that Respondents maintain custody over him in violation of a law of the United States. Instead, Sacal alleges that his detention violates his constitutional due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. As a result, Sacal must demonstrate that his allegations present a viable claim for infringement of his constitutional rights that can be addressed through habeas corpus.
"Typically, habeas is used to challenge the fact or duration of confinement . . . ." Poree v. Collins, 866 F.3d 235, 243 (5th Cir. 2017). "[A]llegations that challenge rules, customs, and procedures affecting conditions of confinement are properly brought in civil rights actions." Schipke v. Van Buren, 239 F. App'x 85, 85-86 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Spina v. Aaron, 821 F.2d 1126, 1127-28 (5th Cir. 1987)). District courts have applied these principles to deny habeasrelief based solely on alleged inadequate conditions of detention. See, e.g., Sarres Mendoza v. Barr, No. CV H-18-3012, 2019 WL 1227494, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2019) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial