Singh v. Barr

Background

Ronald Singh, a citizen of Fiji, had been detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement since July 2018. He was held most recently at the Mesa Verde Detention Facility. His immigration proceedings resulted in an order of removal to Fiji, but his petition for review remained pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had granted him a stay of removal. His appeal from the denial of a bond hearing also remained pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Singh filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a statute allowing a person to challenge unlawful custody. He claimed that his prolonged detention without a constitutionally adequate bond hearing violated procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment. He also claimed that the conditions of detention exposed him to an unconstitutional risk from COVID-19, violating substantive due process. He sought release, subject to appropriate supervision conditions.

Earlier Temporary Release

On April 20, 2020, the court granted Singh’s request for a temporary restraining order in part. The court previously found that Singh had not shown a likelihood of success on his procedural due process claim, but granted temporary relief based on the COVID-19 risks he faced in detention. Singh was temporarily released through May 15, 2020, under conditions agreed to by the parties and entered by the court.

The issue before the court was whether to convert that temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction and extend Singh’s release, or return him to immigration custody.

Threshold Issues

The respondents argued that the court lacked authority to hear the case because Singh was detained outside the Northern District of California and had not named his immediate custodian as a respondent. The court explained that these rules generally concern the place where a habeas petition is filed and the proper respondent, rather than the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Because the respondents had previously conceded that venue was proper, the court found that they had waived the objection concerning Singh’s immediate custodian. The court also concluded that at least one named respondent had legal authority to provide the requested relief. It found no merit in the respondents’ jurisdiction arguments and denied their motion to dismiss.

The respondents also renewed their argument that Singh lacked standing, meaning a concrete and legally recognized injury sufficient to bring the claim. The court rejected that argument and held that Singh could challenge the risk of serious illness from COVID-19 even though Mesa Verde had no confirmed COVID-19 cases at the time. The court reasoned that waiting for a confirmed outbreak could make effective relief impossible.

The respondents argued that release was not an available remedy for a claim about detention conditions. The court concluded that Singh’s claim, properly understood, challenged the validity of his confinement because he sought release from allegedly unconstitutional conditions. It therefore held that it could consider his request for release under the detention-challenge statute.

Preliminary-Injunction Analysis

A preliminary injunction is a court order providing temporary relief before the case is finally decided. To obtain one, Singh had to show likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, that the balance of hardships favored him, and that the injunction served the public interest. The court also considered the heightened showing required when temporary release is sought while a detention challenge remains pending: an extraordinary case involving special circumstances or a high probability of success.

The court found that Singh had submitted medical records showing stage 2 hypertension and other claimed health conditions, including obesity, latent tuberculosis, and a history of smoking. It concluded that he had shown at least one underlying condition that increased his risk of serious illness if he contracted COVID-19. The respondents did not submit contrary medical evidence.

The respondents submitted evidence that Mesa Verde had provided sanitation supplies and masks, restricted social visits, reduced its population to 191 detainees, and taken steps intended to improve social distancing. The court nevertheless found it unclear whether detainees could meaningfully distance themselves throughout the day. Some planned measures had not been fully implemented, and Singh could potentially be transferred to another facility if returned to custody. The court concluded that the respondents had not shown that reasonable measures were in place to protect detainees like Singh from COVID-19 and that Singh had shown a likelihood of success on his claim that the detention conditions posed an unconstitutional health risk.

The court further found that Singh’s claimed harm was not speculative or merely conclusory and that irreparable harm was likely without continued release. It considered Singh’s criminal history and the immigration judge’s finding that he posed a danger to the community, but balanced those concerns against the health risks of detention and the public-health risks associated with an outbreak in a detention facility. The court noted that Singh appeared to have complied with the existing release conditions while monitored by ICE and a California parole officer.

Ruling and Conditions

The court converted the prior temporary restraining order to a preliminary injunction and extended Singh’s temporary release. The release was to continue until further order of the court or as informed by proceedings concerning conditions at Mesa Verde in a related matter identified by case number 3:20-cv-02731-VC.

The order continued GPS monitoring and reporting requirements, required Singh to reside at his parents’ home and follow shelter-in-place rules, and generally barred him from leaving except for specified purposes such as medical care, immigration proceedings, parole-related requirements, and essential business. It prohibited alcohol and unprescribed controlled substances and barred possession of firearms, destructive devices, or other dangerous weapons. The court also limited ICE’s authority to arrest or detain Singh to specified circumstances, including a court order based on a release-condition violation or new information showing that he was dangerous, or a final removal order with a travel document and removal expected within three days. The order required same-day notice to Singh’s counsel and the court if he was arrested or detained.

The order did not finally decide the merits of Singh’s entire detention challenge. It granted preliminary relief while that case and his related immigration proceedings continued.

Disposition

The court denied the respondents’ motion to dismiss, converted the temporary restraining order to a preliminary injunction, extended Singh’s temporary release, and modified the release conditions.