Valenzuela Arias v. Decker
| Docket Number | 20 Civ. 2802 (AT) |
| Decision Date | 10 April 2020 |
| Parties | Santo VALENZUELA ARIAS, Edson Louis, Job Velasquez Estrada, Petitioners, v. Thomas DECKER, in his official capacity as Director of the New York Field Office of U.S. Immigrations & Customs Enforcement; and Chad Wolf, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Sonia Marquez, Brooklyn Defender Services, Brooklyn, NY, for Petitioners.
Petitioners Santo Valenzuela Arias and Edson Louis are currently detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") in the Essex County Correctional Facility ("Essex County Jail"), where cases of COVID-19 have been identified. Petition ¶¶ 2, 6, 7, ECF No. 1. Petitioner Job Velasquez Estrada had been detained there, but was released on April 7, 2020. Id. ¶ 8; TRO Mot. at 1 n.1, ECF No. 3.
On April 8, 2020, Petitioners moved for a temporary restraining order ("TRO")1 requiring Respondents—Thomas Decker, in his official capacity as Director of the New York Field Office of ICE and Chad Wolf, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security—to (1) immediately release Valenzuela Arias and Louis from detention, subject to reasonable conditions, and (2) refrain from arresting Petitioners during the pendency of their immigration proceedings, in light of the public health crisis posed by COVID-19. See TRO Mot. at 1–2.
For the reasons stated below, the TRO is GRANTED, and (1) Respondents and the Essex County Jail are ORDERED to release Petitioners upon satisfaction of conditions to be imposed by the Court, and (2) Respondents are RESTRAINED from arresting Petitioners for civil immigration detention purposes during the pendency of their immigration proceedings.
Petitioners were detained by ICE in connection with removal proceedings pending at the Varick Street Immigration Court. Petition ¶¶ 6–8. They are housed in the Essex County Jail, where at least two detainees and at least 11 staff members have tested positive for COVID-19. See TRO Mem. at 1, 12; Ortiz Decl. ¶ 22, ECF No. 7. There are also seven confirmed cases among inmates at Delaney Hall Detention Facility, another facility that houses ICE detainees located across the street from the facility where Petitioners are being held. Ortiz Decl. ¶ 22; see Delaney Hall Detention Facility , U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Oct. 24, 2019), https://www.ice.gov/detention-facility/delaney-hall-detention-facility.
Each Petitioner suffers from medical conditions that place him at imminent risk of death or serious injury in immigration detention if exposed to COVID-19. As a result of rib and chest wall injuries, Louis, aged 37, suffers from breathlessness and chronic pain. Petition ¶ 6. Last week, after fainting and feeling ill, he was hospitalized and then returned to Essex County Jail. Id. Louis also suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder
, depression, and anxiety. Id. Valenzuela Arias, aged 27, has a lump on the left side of his chest, which requires surgical removal. Id. ¶ 7. Velasquez Estrada, aged 32, was exposed to toxic inhalants as a child laborer, has been a lifelong smoker, and reports difficulty breathing; he was also diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury that impairs his mental faculties. Id. ¶ 8.
At 2:00 p.m. on April 9, 2020, the Court held a telephonic hearing on Petitioners' request for a TRO.
"A plaintiff seeking a temporary restraining order must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Natera, Inc. v. Bio-Reference Labs., Inc. , No. 16 Civ. 9514, 2016 WL 7192106, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2016) (internal quotation marks, citation, and alteration omitted).
"It is well established that in this Circuit the standard for an entry of a TRO is the same as for a preliminary injunction." Andino v. Fischer , 555 F. Supp. 2d 418, 419 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (collecting cases). "The showing of irreparable harm is perhaps the single most important prerequisite for a preliminary injunction." CF 135 Flat LLC v. Triadou SPY N.A. , No. 15 Civ. 5345, 2016 WL 2349111, at *1 (internal quotation marks, citations, and alteration omitted). Under this prong, the movant "must show that the injury it will suffer is likely and imminent, not remote or speculative, and that such injury is not capable of being fully remedied by money damages." NAACP v. Town of E. Haven , 70 F.3d 219, 224 (2d Cir. 1995). To satisfy this requirement, a movant must demonstrate "that he would suffer irreparable harm if the TRO does not issue." Andino , 555 F. Supp. 2d at 419. "The district court has wide discretion in determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction." Almontaser v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ. , 519 F.3d 505, 508 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Respondents argue that the petition should be severed into separate habeas actions for each Petitioner. Resp. Opp. at 21–23, ECF No. 9. Severance of the petition at the TRO stage would be inappropriate, however, given the equities and judicial energy spent considering the parties' submissions. See Coronel v. Decker , 20 Civ. 2472, 449 F.Supp.3d 274, 280 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2020) (); see also id. , ECF No. 35 at 3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2020) ().
In any event, the Court rejects Respondents' argument on the merits. A single habeas action is appropriate, because the alleged health risks posed by COVID-19 and the constitutional claims presented do not turn on facts unique to each Petitioner. Cf. Bob v. Decker, No. 19 Civ. 8226, ECF No. 4 at 3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2019) (). Rather, Petitioners raise almost identical questions of law and fact, including whether Respondents are adequately protecting Petitioners from contracting COVID-19, whether Respondents are deliberately indifferent to Petitioners' medical needs, and whether release from detention is justified under these circumstances. See Petition; United States ex rel. Sero v. Preiser , 506 F.2d 1115, 1125–26 (2d Cir. 1974) ().
This circuit is not without precedent on multi-party habeas actions. In United States ex rel. Sero v. Preiser , the Second Circuit considered a proposed habeas corpus class action brought by adult misdemeanants who were imprisoned in a state institution, on behalf of themselves and all other young adult misdemeanants who had been sentenced to longer terms than they would have received had they been adults. 506 F.2d at 1119. The court of appeals held that a "multi-party proceeding similar to the class action authorized by [ Rule 23 of the Federal Rules] of Civil Procedure" was permissible, because the judiciary has the inherent authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to fashion "expeditious methods of procedure in a specific case." Id. at 1125 (citing Harris v. Nelson , 394 U.S. 286, 294, 89 S.Ct. 1082, 22 L.Ed.2d 281 (1969) ); see also Bertrand v. Sava , 684 F.2d 204, 219 (2d Cir. 1982) (). Here, Petitioners allege shared harms, including the alleged systemic failure of Respondents to identify and protect individuals in the Essex County Jail who are at high risk of complications from COVID-19. If there were ever an extraordinary circumstance warranting a multi-party habeas petition to allow for expeditious resolution of the claims before the Court, it would be this case.
The Court concludes that considerations of "judicial economy and fairness argue persuasively for the construction of a procedure" such as this one, where Petitioners "shar[e] certain complaints about the legality" of their confinement. Bertrand v. Sava , 535 F. Supp. 1020, 1024 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) (citations omitted), rev'd on other grounds , 684 F.2d 204 (2d Cir. 1982) ; see also id. at 1024–25 (). The Court, therefore, will permit Petitioners to proceed in this action jointly.
In the Second Circuit, a "showing of irreparable harm is the single most important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary injunction." Faiveley Transport Malmo AB v. Wabtec Corp. , 559 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). That harm must be "actual and imminent" rather than speculative. Id.
Petitioners have shown irreparable harm by establishing that continued detention in the Essex County Jail poses a serious threat to their health and to their constitutional rights.
By now, the extraordinary scope and severity of...
To continue reading
Request your trial