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