Doe v. Barr

Background

John Doe, an asylum seeker, filed a petition challenging his immigration detention and sought immediate release. He had been held at the Yuba County Jail for more than four years after receiving a cumulative 65-day time-served sentence for convictions involving public intoxication, domestic violence, and violating an order prohibiting him from visiting his wife’s home. His asylum proceedings had repeatedly moved between immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals, including three remands for legal errors.

The court had previously granted Doe’s request for a temporary restraining order and ordered his release subject to conditions. The court then required the respondents to show why a preliminary injunction should not issue. Doe presented evidence that he had severe posttraumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder with psychotic features, severe anxiety, and a history of suicide attempts while detained. Medical professionals stated that detention had seriously harmed his mental health and that he faced heightened risks from COVID-19.

Parties’ Arguments

The respondents argued that circumstances at the jail had changed. They cited a smaller immigration-detainee population, free soap, soap dispensers, masks, mask requirements for staff and Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel, increased spacing between beds, and some measures intended to promote social distancing. They also stated that the jail had no suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases. The respondents argued that continued detention served the public interest by protecting the public and ensuring Doe’s attendance at removal proceedings.

Doe argued that the jail’s precautions were inadequate because detainees continued to share bathrooms, showers, recreational areas, and other common spaces. The court noted that the respondents were not testing detainees or staff for COVID-19. Doe also presented evidence that, after his release, he had complied with release requirements, received mental-health treatment, obtained an employment authorization document, and remained subject to GPS monitoring and an intensive supervision program.

Court’s Analysis

A preliminary injunction is an order issued before final judgment to prevent likely irreparable harm while a case continues. The court applied the usual four considerations: likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without an injunction, the balance of harms, and the public interest. It also explained that the facts and law must clearly favor the requested relief.

The court rejected the respondents’ arguments. It found that the evidence strongly indicated that returning Doe to detention would seriously endanger his mental health and could expose him to severe or fatal COVID-19 complications. The court found the jail’s protective measures inadequate, particularly because of shared facilities and the absence of testing. It also concluded that Doe’s release history, monitoring, legal representation, treatment arrangements, and compliance with reporting requirements weakened the respondents’ assertions that he remained a flight risk or danger to the community.

The petition contained three claims. Claim 1 asserted that release was required under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act because Doe’s mental-health conditions caused unequal access to immigration adjudication and detention aggravated his disabilities. Claim 2 asserted that continued civil detention during the COVID-19 pandemic was unlawful punishment in violation of due process. Claim 3 asserted that Doe’s detention for more than four years violated the law, although the excerpt does not provide the complete description of that claim.

The court found that Doe had shown a high likelihood of success on Claim 2 and that the other preliminary-injunction factors favored continued release. It therefore granted a preliminary injunction on the same terms and conditions as the earlier temporary restraining order. The respondents and their officers, agents, employees, servants, and attorneys were ordered to maintain the status quo during the case.

Disposition

The court denied the respondents’ request to dismiss or deny the petition. It stayed Claim 1 and Claim 3 because the temporary restraining order, followed by the preliminary injunction, had already secured the release those claims sought, making them unripe for adjudication at that time. The court stated that those claims could become ready for decision if relevant circumstances changed. It also ordered the parties to promptly file a joint status report if developments changed the factual basis for the decision on Claim 2.

The opinion grants the preliminary injunction but does not finally resolve all three claims. Judge Robert M. Illman signed the order as a United States Magistrate Judge.