Doe v. Becerra
- Pitts
- 5:23-cv-04767
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 20
In John Doe v. Becerra, Judge Pitts held that two years of detention required an individualized bond hearing.
John Doe, the federal government, and the immigration detention system; the order required a bond hearing for Doe and dismissed the other named respondents.
What happened
In John Doe v. Becerra, John Doe had been detained by immigration officials for more than two years while his removal case continued. He was held under a law requiring detention of certain noncitizens with qualifying criminal convictions, but he had never received an individualized hearing before an immigration judge to decide whether detention was necessary.
The court held that it had jurisdiction even though Doe was held at a private detention center outside the district because the named federal official, Moises Becerra, worked in the district and oversaw the relevant detention operations. The court concluded that Doe’s prolonged detention without an individualized bond hearing violated procedural due process. It did not decide whether the detention also violated substantive due process.
Judge Pitts ordered the government to provide Doe with a bond hearing before an immigration judge by December 15, 2023. The government had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that continued detention was needed to protect the public or prevent Doe from fleeing; the other named respondents were dismissed.
The detailed version
- Doe v. Becerra · No. 5:23-cv-04767
- Pitts
- Dec. 1, 2023
Background
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained John Doe under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) after he completed a state prison sentence in September 2021. That statute requires detention during removal proceedings for noncitizens covered by specified criminal-conviction provisions. Doe did not contest that his prior convictions fell within the statute. His removal proceedings and related appeals were ongoing, and the Ninth Circuit had stayed his removal.
Doe was held at the Golden State Annex, a private, for-profit facility operated by The GEO Group, Inc. under contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The facility was outside the Northern District of California, while respondent Moises Becerra, the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s San Francisco Field Office, performed his official duties in the district. Doe had not received a bond hearing before an immigration judge. The government said that the Department of Homeland Security had conducted a custody review in 2021 and continued to consider Doe a threat to public safety. Doe also said that the detention conditions harmed his physical and mental health.
Jurisdiction and proper respondent
The government argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because Doe was detained outside the district and that Becerra was not Doe’s immediate custodian. The court rejected those arguments. It reasoned that the unidentified GEO facility administrator might exercise day-to-day control but lacked the legal authority and practical ability to release Doe, arrange a bond hearing, or defend the federal government’s reasons for detention. The court concluded that Becerra was a readily identifiable federal official exercising immediate control over the contract facility and was properly named as the respondent.
The court therefore concluded that it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). It dismissed the other respondents—Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Deputy Director for Immigration and Customs Enforcement Patrick Lechleitner, and Attorney General Merrick Garland—under the immediate-custodian principles discussed in the opinion.
Procedural due process
The court held that Doe’s prolonged detention without an individualized bond hearing violated procedural due process. It applied the three-part test from Mathews v. Eldridge: the detained person’s private interest, the risk of an erroneous deprivation under existing procedures and the value of additional safeguards, and the government’s interests and administrative burden.
The court found that Doe had a strong liberty interest in avoiding prolonged detention, especially given his detention conditions and asserted health effects. It found a substantial risk of error because Doe had never received an individualized assessment of whether he currently posed a danger to the public or a flight risk. The court also considered evidence of his rehabilitation and family ties. Although the government had strong interests in public safety and ensuring Doe’s appearance in removal proceedings, the court concluded that those interests would remain protected through a bond hearing and that the administrative burden would be limited.
The court ordered a hearing before an immigration judge. At that hearing, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Doe’s continued detention is justified to protect the public or prevent him from fleeing. The hearing and any oral decision must be transcribed.
Substantive due process claim
Doe separately argued that the length and conditions of his detention had become punitive and therefore violated substantive due process. The court recognized that immigration detention can become excessively prolonged and punitive, but it did not decide whether Doe’s detention had crossed that line. Because the bond hearing might resolve or make unnecessary that claim, the court held the substantive due process challenge in abeyance pending the hearing.
Disposition
Judge P. Casey Pitts concluded that, after more than two years of detention, the Constitution entitled Doe to an individualized bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. The government was ordered to provide that hearing by December 15, 2023. The court reserved judgment on Doe’s substantive due process claim and dismissed the other named respondents.
Read the full 20-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.