Domingo v. Garland

Background

Primo Bicera Domingo, a lawful permanent resident and citizen of the Philippines, entered the United States on October 13, 2013. In 2018, he was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon under California Penal Code section 245(a)(1). The government determined that the conviction made him removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Immigration removal proceedings began in July 2019, and Domingo conceded the charge of removability. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal on April 20, 2020. He then filed a petition for review and sought a stay of removal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The stay was granted, and the petition for review remained pending.

In July 2020, an immigration judge conducted a competency hearing and a custody hearing. The judge observed that Domingo showed some delusional thinking that could make it difficult for his lawyer to work with him, but found that he was not really incompetent. The judge ordered procedural safeguards and also found that Domingo posed a danger to the community and a flight risk, ordering that he be held without bond. At Yuba County Jail, Domingo had been involved in several altercations and had spent several months in solitary confinement.

Jurisdiction

The respondents argued that the Northern District of California lacked jurisdiction because Domingo was confined at Yuba County Jail in the Eastern District of California and the Yuba County Sheriff was his immediate custodian. They relied on the general rule that a person challenging present physical custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 generally names the warden and files the case in the district of confinement.

The court rejected that argument. Relying on decisions from the Northern District of California, it concluded that the Yuba County Sheriff lacked actual authority over Domingo’s immigration detention. The jail was providing a service to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, while federal immigration officials controlled Domingo’s admission to and release from the jail. The court also concluded that David Jennings, an ICE official named as a respondent who was located in the district and had discretionary authority to release Domingo, was a proper respondent. The court held that Domingo’s petition was properly filed in the Northern District of California and that jurisdiction existed.

Temporary restraining order

Domingo claimed that his continued detention violated section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Due Process Clause. His theories were that he had been denied adequate medical and psychiatric treatment and that his diagnosed medical conditions exposed him to a heightened risk of contracting COVID-19 in detention.

The court stated that it was not persuaded that Domingo was likely to succeed on his COVID-19-related claims. It also considered the respondents’ declaration that ICE was willing to release Domingo directly to San Francisco General Hospital’s locked-down mental-health facility if the hospital agreed to return him directly to ICE custody after treatment. The court found that treatment would benefit Domingo and would not threaten the community or public interest. It stated that it lacked enough information to decide Domingo’s long-term custody after treatment.

The court therefore granted in part Domingo’s motion for a temporary restraining order. It ordered ICE to release Domingo immediately; required William Scott of the Faithful Friends Visitation Program at Yuba County Jail to transport him to Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital’s Psychiatric Emergency Services, or another facility to which that service referred him; and directed that he remain there until the court ruled on whether he should be returned to ICE custody. The facility was to conduct a psychological and psychiatric assessment lasting no more than 48 hours. Domingo had to provide ICE a complete copy of the assessment or referral and submit a status report to the court within 72 hours after the assessment, including the prescribed treatment and its expected duration. The order assigned all medical expenses after release from ICE custody to Domingo and terminated docket numbers 12 and 20.

Disposition

The court granted in part the motion for a temporary restraining order. It resolved the jurisdictional challenge in Domingo’s favor but did not decide his long-term custody or the ultimate merits of his claims.