Duong v. Jennings

Background

Rachana Duong and Kethikoun Keo filed a petition asking for release from immigration detention at Yuba County Jail. The opinion says both petitioners are refugees from Cambodia and are being held by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Duong had been diagnosed with asthma, among other conditions, and had been detained since March 17, 2020. Keo had been diagnosed with congestive heart failure and high blood pressure and had been detained since December 2019 after a final removal order.

The petitioners’ single claim alleged that, as civil detainees, their substantive due process rights were violated because their medical conditions increased the risk of severe COVID-19 complications and the jail’s cramped conditions and communal facilities made it effectively impossible to protect themselves from infection. They also filed a request for immediate release.

Motion to Stay

The respondents moved to stay, or pause, the case under the duplicative-case doctrine. They argued that the petitioners could seek the requested relief in a pending class action, Angel de Jesus Zepeda-Rivas v. David Jennings et al., No. 3:20-cv-02731-VC. Duong and Keo opposed the stay, arguing that their requested individual relief was different from the class action’s request for systemic reform and depended on evidence about their individual circumstances.

The court rejected that distinction. It pointed to procedures in the related class action for individualized bail decisions based on factors including the risks posed by current detention conditions and a detainee’s medical conditions. The court also addressed the possibility that Keo might later challenge continued detention as indefinite. It found that the current petition did not include that claim and noted Keo’s concession that six months of detention after a final removal order had not yet elapsed, which the opinion describes as the presumptively reasonable period under Zadvydas v. Davis.

Disposition

The court ordered that the matter be stayed pending further action concerning these petitioners in the related class action. After a final release determination, counsel had to notify the court and make any appropriate further filings or requests. The court also ordered petitioners’ counsel to coordinate with counsel in the related class action to promptly prepare the petitioners’ bail applications.

This order did not decide whether the petitioners’ detention violated substantive due process, and it did not itself order their release. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman.