University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
view search results
page permalink
Case Name Albino-Martinez v. Adducci IM-MI-0007
Docket / Court 2:20-cv-10893 ( E.D. Mich. )
State/Territory Michigan
Case Type(s) Immigration and/or the Border
Special Collection COVID-19 (novel coronavirus)
Attorney Organization ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project
ACLU National Prison Project
ACLU of Michigan
Case Summary
COVID-19 Summary: Five immigration detainees filed a habeas petition and a motion for a temporary restraining order challenging their continued detention in Michigan jails despite their heightened vulnerability to COVID-19. On April 14, the district court denied the plaintiffs' request for a TRO ... read more >
COVID-19 Summary: Five immigration detainees filed a habeas petition and a motion for a temporary restraining order challenging their continued detention in Michigan jails despite their heightened vulnerability to COVID-19. On April 14, the district court denied the plaintiffs' request for a TRO. On April 29, the court issued an opinion denying the plaintiffs' habeas petition and dismissing their claims.


On April 7, 2020, five immigration detainees filed a habeas petition and lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Department of Justice (DOJ). The plaintiffs were being held in ICE custody at the Monroe County Jail and the St. Clair County Jail in Michigan, and alleged they were particularly vulnerable to serious illness or death if infected by COVID-19. Represented by the ACLU of Michigan, the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, the ACLU National Prison Project, and private counsel, the plaintiffs sought a writ of habeas corpus and an order for the plaintiffs’ immediate release on the ground that their continued detention violated the Due Process Clause or, in the alternative, injunctive relief to the same effect. The plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) requesting immediate release in addition to their complaint. The plaintiffs also sought declaratory relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. The case was assigned to Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III.

The complaint claimed that the plaintiffs faced a heightened risk of contracting the virus due to their confinement. It further stated that the plaintiffs were older adults and/or had underlying medical conditions creating a high risk of serious infection. The plaintiffs alleged that their continued detention subjected them to unlawful punishment in violation of their Fifth Amendment right to substantive due process.

The plaintiffs also stated that one of the plaintiffs had been scheduled to be removed from the U.S. in March, but ICE had indefinitely delayed that departure date. Consequently, the plaintiff was being detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231, which authorizes a 90-day period of mandatory post-final-order detention during which ICE is supposed to effectuate removal. The plaintiffs alleged that this plaintiff would necessarily be detained beyond this 90-day period due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and should therefore be immediately released under an order of supervision.

On April 14, Judge Murphy denied the plaintiffs' emergency motion for a TRO. In his opinion, Judge Murphy stated that the plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment claims were more properly analyzed under the Eighth Amendment standard for claims relating to health concerns. He then concluded that at this early stage, the plaintiffs had failed to show that they are or will be exposed to a substantial risk of serious harm such that this relief was warranted. Judge Murphy noted that detention centers were implementing recommendations for preventing the spread of COVID-19, and that the plaintiffs had not provided much facility-specific information regarding the outbreak. 2020 WL 1872362.

The defendants filed their response to the plaintiffs' habeas petition on April 17.

On April 29, 2020, Judge Murphy issued an opinion and order denying the plaintiffs' habeas petition and granting in part and denying in part a motion they had filed on April 20 seeking leave to submit additional evidence. Judge Murphy first noted that of the original five petitioners, only two still had live claims; since filing, one had been released, one had been deported, and one had been transferred to a facility in Louisiana. Consequently, the only claims remaining related to the Monroe facility and the plaintiff being detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231.

Addressing the plaintiffs' due process claims, Judge Murphy again noted that the claims were more properly analyzed under the Eighth Amendment's deliberate indifference standard because they related to health concerns. He found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that they had objectively been exposed to a substantial risk of serious harm; rather, he stated that COVID-19 posed a risk of serious illness to all Americans, whether detained or not. He concluded that COVID-19 had not "breached the walls" of the Monroe detention facility, and that detention centers were implementing precautions to prevent its spread. He next noted that most of the evidence the plaintiffs had presented was not specific to the Monroe facility, but rather focused on ICE facilities throughout the U.S.

Judge Murphy next addressed the claim that one plaintiff was being detained in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) because his removal was not reasonably likely in the foreseeable future. He concluded that the statute's 90-day period of mandatory post-final-order detention would not expire until May 25, 2020, at the earliest, meaning that the plaintiff had only alleged a potential future violation. Consequently, Judge Murphy denied the plaintiff's claim without prejudice.

Judge Murphy entered a final judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' claims.

As of June 9, 2020, the plaintiffs have not filed an appeal.

Sam Kulhanek - 06/09/2020


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Content of Injunction
Preliminary relief denied
Defendant-type
Corrections
General
Bathing and hygiene
Conditions of confinement
Habeas Corpus
Sanitation / living conditions
Totality of conditions
Immigration/Border
Constitutional rights
Detention - conditions
Detention - criteria
Detention - procedures
Medical/Mental Health
COVID-19 Release Denied
COVID-19 Release Requested
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Special Case Type
Habeas
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
Defendant(s) U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of Justice
Plaintiff Description Five immigration detainees being held at the Monroe County Jail and the St. Clair County Jail in Michigan who are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project
ACLU National Prison Project
ACLU of Michigan
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Defendant
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief Litigation
Filed 04/07/2020
Case Ongoing Yes
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)
2:20-cv-10893 (E.D. Mich.)
IM-MI-0007-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/01/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief [ECF# 1]
IM-MI-0007-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/07/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Petitioner-Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [ECF# 2]
IM-MI-0007-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/07/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion and Order Denying Petitioners' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order [2] and Granting Petitioners' Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages [12] [ECF# 17] (2020 WL 1872362) (E.D. Mich.)
IM-MI-0007-0003.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 04/14/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion and Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [1] and Granting in Part and Denying in Part Petitioners' Motion for Leave to Submit Additional Evidence [23] [ECF# 30] (E.D. Mich.)
IM-MI-0007-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/29/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Grand, David R. (E.D. Mich.) [Magistrate] show/hide docs
IM-MI-0007-9000
Levy, Judith Ellen (E.D. Mich.) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0007-9000
Murphy, Stephen Joseph III (E.D. Mich.) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0007-0003 | IM-MI-0007-0004 | IM-MI-0007-9000
Patti, Anthony P. Court not on record [Magistrate] show/hide docs
IM-MI-0007-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Andrade, Monica (Michigan) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0007-0001 | IM-MI-0007-0002 | IM-MI-0007-9000
Aukerman, Miriam (Michigan) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0007-0001 | IM-MI-0007-0002 | IM-MI-0007-9000
Balakrishnan, Anand V. (New York) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0007-0001 | IM-MI-0007-0002
Cho, Eunice (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0007-0001 | IM-MI-0007-0002 | IM-MI-0007-9000
Contreras, Jonathan (Michigan) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0007-0001
Fathi, David Cyrus (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0007-0001 | IM-MI-0007-0002 | IM-MI-0007-9000
Fiorill, Rachel M (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0007-0001 | IM-MI-0007-0002 | IM-MI-0007-9000
Garbacik, Rosana Santana Moura (Michigan) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0007-9000
Jadwat, Omar C. (New York) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0007-0001 | IM-MI-0007-0002
Jaffe, Peter (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0007-0001 | IM-MI-0007-0002
Kaplovitz, Ronald (Michigan) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0007-0001
Korobkin, Daniel S. (Michigan) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0007-0001 | IM-MI-0007-0002 | IM-MI-0007-9000
Lewis, Ayesha Elaine (Michigan) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0007-0001 | IM-MI-0007-0002
Mendelsohn, Mark (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0007-0001 | IM-MI-0007-0002
Ngo, My Khanh (California) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0007-0001 | IM-MI-0007-0002 | IM-MI-0007-9000
Payson, Travis J (Colorado) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0007-0001
Rhee, Jeannie S. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0007-0001 | IM-MI-0007-0002 | IM-MI-0007-9000
Silberstein-Loeb, Jonathan M (New York) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0007-0001 | IM-MI-0007-0002 | IM-MI-0007-9000
Stacer, Andrew D (Michigan) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0007-9000
Tan, Michael K. T. (New York) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0007-0001 | IM-MI-0007-0002
Defendant's Lawyers Darling, Bradley (Michigan) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0007-9000
Newby, Jennifer L. (Michigan) show/hide docs
IM-MI-0007-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
view search results
page permalink

- top of page -