University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
view search results
page permalink
Case Name Reid v. Donelan IM-MA-0006
Docket / Court 3:13-cv-30125-MAP ( D. Mass. )
Additional Docket(s) 14-1270  [ 14-1270 ]
14-1803  [ 14-1803 ]
14-1823  [ 14-1823 ]
State/Territory Massachusetts
Case Type(s) Immigration and/or the Border
Special Collection Post-WalMart decisions on class certification
Attorney Organization ACLU Chapters (any)
ACLU National (all projects)
ACLU of Southern California
Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization (Yale)
Case Summary
On July 1, 2013, a lawful permanent resident held in immigration detention in Massachusetts for eight months filed a federal habeas petition under 18 U.S.C. § 2241, and a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, contending that the prolonged detention of ... read more >
On July 1, 2013, a lawful permanent resident held in immigration detention in Massachusetts for eight months filed a federal habeas petition under 18 U.S.C. § 2241, and a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, contending that the prolonged detention of himself and others similarly situated without an individualized bond hearing violated the Immigration & Nationality Act (INA), the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, and the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Bail Clause. The plaintiff was represented by Yale's Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization, the ACLU, and private attorneys. The defendants included several Massachusetts sheriffs, the Franklin County Jail, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). District Court Judge Michael A. Ponsor was assigned to the case.

While living in the U.S., the plaintiff had been convicted of a number of crimes, including selling an illegal drug, third degree burglary, and failure to appear. As a result of those convictions, he was sentenced in Connecticut state court to twelve years in prison, to be suspended after five. After serving two years, he was paroled on November 13, 2012. On that same day, ICE took the plaintiff into custody and immediately took action to deport him to Jamaica. In removal proceedings, the plaintiff sought relief against deportation under the Convention Against Torture, and on the ground that his removal would be disproportionate to any underlying misconduct. The Immigration Judge denied relief, and after the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded, the Immigration Judge denied relief a second time. On December 29, 2014, the BIA found error and remanded the case once more.

On January 9, 2014, the District Court granted the plaintiff's habeas petition and ordered ICE to provide the plaintiff with a bond hearing. The Court determined that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), the statute governing the detention of noncitizens who have committed certain crimes and are in removal proceedings, imposed a "reasonableness limit on the length of time an individual can be detained in immigration custody without an individual bond hearing." 991 F.Supp.2d 275. The Court held that detention beyond six months, absent an individualized assessment of flight risk or dangerousness, was presumptively unreasonable. In the alternative, the Court found that the individualized circumstances of the plaintiff's case rendered his continued detention unreasonable.

The plaintiff also argued in District Court that he had been needlessly shackled in Hartford Immigration Court. On March 6, 2014, the District Court held that ICE's nationwide policy of shackling detainees without an individualized finding of dangerousness violates the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. However, the Judge found that the claim of Mr. Reid himself was moot because he had been released on bond as a result of his successful habeas petition.

Finally, because ICE had repeatedly and unlawfully held detainees like the plaintiff for months or years without a bond hearing, the plaintiff had moved to represent a class of similarly situated detainees in Massachusetts (where ICE confines most Connecticut residents). The District Court granted the motion for class certification, defining the class as: all individuals who are or will be detained within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) for over six months and have not been afforded an individualized bond hearing.

On May 27, 2014, the Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff class and ordered class-wide relief. The Court held that the defendants must: (1) cease and desist subjecting all current and future class members to mandatory detention; (2) immediately determine the custody of every current class member under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and timely provide a bond hearing to every class member that seeks a redetermination of his or her custody by an Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19; (3) determine the custody of every future class member under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and provide a bond hearing to every class member that seeks a redetermination of his or her custody by an Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19 & 1236.1(d); (4) provide class counsel with a list of identified class members, including their names and alien numbers, and the facility in which they are detained; and (5) submit to the Court a report detailing custody determinations, bond hearing information, etc.

The defendants appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 13, 2016, the First Circuit (Howard, Chief Judge, Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges) affirmed the District Court's judgment with respect to the plaintiff, but vacated the judgment as to the class members, and remanded the class action for reconsideration of the class certification. The Court disagreed with the District Court's adoption of the six-month bright line rule regarding detention under § 1226(c), preferring instead an individualized approach. And while it agreed that in the plaintiff's particular case his prolonged detention had become unreasonable, it determined that the adoption of the six-month rule was "an essential predicate to class certification" in the case, and by removing that predicate the class's legitimacy was called into question. 819 F.3d 486. On February 10, 2017, the defendants moved to decertify the class. The District Court denied the request on March 23.

On January 2, 2018, the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but on April 16, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

On May 11, 2018, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez (summarized here), where the Court reversed the six-month detention rule that had been adopted by the Ninth Circuit, the First Circuit withdrew its 2016 opinion and vacated the judgment. The District Court’s judgment as to the plaintiff was again affirmed but vacated as to the class members. The class action was remanded for reconsideration of the certification order.

On May 30, 2018, the case was reassigned to Chief Judge Patti B. Saris.

On June 26, 2018, the defendants again moved to decertify the class. On October 23, 2018, the District Court denied the defendants' motion to decertify the class, and certified the following class: All individuals who are or will be detained within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or the State of New Hampshire pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) for over six months and have not been afforded an individualized bond or reasonableness hearing.

On October 24, 2018, the plaintiffs amended their complaint, including new class representatives and expanding the class to include detainees at an additional county jail in New Hampshire.

As of December 5, 2018, the case was ongoing.

Rebecca Eisenbrey - 04/12/2015
Sam Kulhanek - 12/05/2018


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Defendant-type
Corrections
Jurisdiction-wide
Law-enforcement
General
Bail/Bond
Fines/Fees/Bail/Bond
Habeas Corpus
Over/Unlawful Detention
Immigration/Border
Constitutional rights
Detention - procedures
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Special Case Type
Habeas
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Defendant(s) Department of Homeland Security
Franklin County Jail and House of Correction
Sheriff of Bristol County
Sheriff of Franklin County
Sheriff of Plymouth County
Sheriff of Suffolk County
The Executive Office for Immigration Review
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Plaintiff Description All individuals who are or will be detained within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or the State of New Hampshire pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) for over six months and have not been afforded an individualized bond or reasonableness hearing.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU Chapters (any)
ACLU National (all projects)
ACLU of Southern California
Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization (Yale)
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Habeas relief
Source of Relief Litigation
Filing Year 2013
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing IM-MA-0005 : Gordon v. Napolitano [later Johnson, Nielsen] (D. Mass.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at CourtListener.com (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
Docket(s)
3:13-cv-30125-MAP (D. Mass.)
IM-MA-0006-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/07/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Memorandum of Law in Support of Mark Reid's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and for Summary Judgment [ECF# 2]
IM-MA-0006-0007.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/01/2013
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF# 4-2]
IM-MA-0006-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/01/2013
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum and Order Regarding Plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF# 80] (991 F.Supp.2d 275) (D. Mass.)
IM-MA-0006-0001.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 01/09/2014
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum and Order Regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification [ECF# 92] (297 F.R.D. 185) (D. Mass.)
IM-MA-0006-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 02/10/2014
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum and Order Regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendants' Cross-motion for Summary Judgment (2 F.Supp.3d 38) (D. Mass.)
IM-MA-0006-0004.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 03/06/2014
Source: Bloomberg Law
Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Motion for Notice of Class Certification (22 F.Supp.3d 84) (D. Mass.)
IM-MA-0006-0006.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 05/27/2014
Source: Westlaw
Memorandom and Order Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Enforcement or Modification of Class Certification Order and for Limited Discovery [ECF# 182] (2014 WL 6973634) (D. Mass.)
IM-MA-0006-0005.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 12/10/2014
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion (819 F.3d 486)
IM-MA-0006-0009.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 04/13/2016
Source: Google Scholar
Judgment (2018 WL 4000993)
IM-MA-0006-0010.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 05/11/2018
Source: Westlaw
First Amended Complaint [ECF# 421]
IM-MA-0006-0008.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/24/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Ponsor, Michael Adrian (D. Mass.) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-0001 | IM-MA-0006-0002 | IM-MA-0006-0004 | IM-MA-0006-0005 | IM-MA-0006-0006
Saris, Patti B. (D. Mass.) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Ahmad, Muneer I. (Connecticut) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-0007 | IM-MA-0006-9000
Ahmed, Sameer (New York) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-9000
Arulanantham, Ahilan T (California) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-0008 | IM-MA-0006-9000
Carasik, Lauren (Massachusetts) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-0007 | IM-MA-0006-9000
Evarts, Linda (New York) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-0007
Fabian Izzo, Rebecca (Massachusetts) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-9000
Fleming, Mark C. (Massachusetts) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-9000
Hallett, Amber Nicole (Connecticut) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-9000
Hinman, Miriam (Connecticut) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-9000
Hoechst, Kendall (Connecticut) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-9000
Johnson, Tassity S. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-0007
Mai, Lunar (Connecticut) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-9000
Manfredi, Zachary-John (Connecticut) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-9000
Ngo, My Khanh (Connecticut) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-9000
Orihuela, Marisol (California) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-0008 | IM-MA-0006-9000
Saraswat, Anant K. (Massachusetts) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-0008 | IM-MA-0006-9000
Segal, Matthew (Massachusetts) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-9000
Silva, Travis (California) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-0007
Song, Elizabeth (Connecticut) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-9000
Swift, Ruth (Connecticut) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-9000
Thomas, Tina M. (Connecticut) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-9000
Thomas Tan, Michael King (California) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-0008 | IM-MA-0006-9000
Wishnie, Michael J. (Connecticut) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-0007 | IM-MA-0006-0008 | IM-MA-0006-9000
Yanik, Mary (Connecticut) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Davila, Yamileth G. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-9000
Goodwin, Karen L. (Massachusetts) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-9000
Hildebrand, Regan (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-9000
Kisor, Colin A. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-9000
Perez, Elianis N. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-9000
Weintraub, J. Max (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MA-0006-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
view search results
page permalink

- top of page -