University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Brizuela v. Feliciano IM-CT-0009
Docket / Court 3:12-cv-00226-JBA ( D. Conn. )
State/Territory Connecticut
Case Type(s) Immigration
Special Collection Post-PLRA enforceable consent decrees
Post-PLRA Jail and Prison Private Settlement Agreements
Attorney Organization Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization (Yale)
Case Summary
On February 13, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2241 and filed suit against the Connecticut Department of Corrections under 42 U.S.C. §1983 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Plaintiffs are detainees in Connecticut Department ... read more >
On February 13, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2241 and filed suit against the Connecticut Department of Corrections under 42 U.S.C. §1983 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Plaintiffs are detainees in Connecticut Department of Corrections (CDOC) facilities who, after the expiration of the state-law basis of their detention, remain in state custody solely due to an administrative "immigration detainer" placed by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Represented by the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization at Yale Law School, Plaintiffs seek a writ of habeas corpus requiring the state to release Plaintiffs, an injunction against detaining future individuals based solely on an immigration detainer, and declaratory judgment invalidating such detention.

Detainers issued by ICE request state and local law enforcement officials to hold individuals in custody, without any basis in state law, for up to 48 hours, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §287.7. Plaintiff Sergio Brizuela's state-based detention ended on February 10, 2012; he filed the petition on February 13, 2012, when his subsequent detention continued for more than 48 hours. On the same day, Plaintiff filed a motion to certify a class of detainees similarly situated in CDOC facilities. Claiming they were being detained without probable cause without hearing, and that the detainer is an invalid commandeering of state officials, Plaintiffs alleged violation of their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure. Additionally, Plaintiffs asserted that their Fourteenth Amendment substantive and procedural due process rights were being violated because the state lacked a compelling interest in their continued detention.

On February 19, 2013, the parties entered a proposed settlement agreement based on the newly enacted state regulations in A.D. 9.3 (adopted on February 2, 2013). The settlement agreement states that if an ICE immigration detainer is placed on a detainee, the detainee will be notified by the CDOC as soon as practicable. If the detainee's state-based detention has expired and the detainee does not have a prior order of removal and does not meet certain "dangerousness criteria" set forth in A.D. 9.3 ¶11, the detainee shall not be held (unless in rare occasions, in which the CDOC may use its discretion under A.D. 9.3 ¶11(A)(7) to continue detention). If the detainee has a prior order of removal or satisfies certain dangerousness criteria, CDOC shall hold him or her (subject to CDOC's discretion). The District Court (Judge Janet Bond Arterton) approved the settlement agreement on March 5, 2013. The settlement agreement expires on February 2, 2017.

Dan Osher - 03/09/2013


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Federalism
Content of Injunction
Auditing
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Recordkeeping
Reporting
Required disclosure
Defendant-type
Corrections
General
Habeas Corpus
Over/Unlawful Detention
Immigration
Constitutional rights
Detention - criteria
Detention - procedures
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) Connecticut Department of Corrections
Plaintiff Description Plaintiffs are those who have been (and are currently being) held in a Connecticut Department of Corrections facility based solely on an ICE "immigration detainer" for more than 48 hours.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization (Yale)
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Pending
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Private Settlement Agreement
Conditional Dismissal
Order Duration 2013 - 2017
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Threats to the Future of the Immigration Class Action
Washington University Journal of Law and Policy
By: Jill E. Family (Widener University School of Law)
Citation: 27 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 71 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
3:12-cv-226 (D. Conn.) 02/19/2013
IM-CT-0009-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 02/13/2012
IM-CT-0009-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: Papers of Margo Schlanger
Order of Administrative Dismissal 08/06/2012 (D. Conn.)
IM-CT-0009-0003.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Settlement Agreement and Stipulation of Dismissal upon Termination of Agreement 02/08/2013
IM-CT-0009-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: Papers of Margo Schlanger
Settlement Agreement Signed Order 03/01/2013 (D. Conn.)
IM-CT-0009-0004.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Arterton, Janet Bond (D. Conn.)
IM-CT-0009-0003 | IM-CT-0009-0004 | IM-CT-0009-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Ahmad, Muneer I. (Connecticut)
IM-CT-0009-0001 | IM-CT-0009-0002 | IM-CT-0009-9000
Lai, Anne (Connecticut)
IM-CT-0009-0002 | IM-CT-0009-9000
Wishnie, Michael J. (Connecticut)
IM-CT-0009-0001 | IM-CT-0009-0002 | IM-CT-0009-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Dearington, Robert S (Connecticut)
IM-CT-0009-0002 | IM-CT-0009-9000
O'Neill, Terrance M. (Connecticut)
IM-CT-0009-0002 | IM-CT-0009-9000
Strom, Steven R. (Connecticut)
IM-CT-0009-0002 | IM-CT-0009-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -