Daciann D. B. v. Charles

Background

Daciann D. B. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging her ongoing detention at the Kandiyohi County Jail by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). She was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), which generally requires detention of certain noncitizens during removal proceedings without a bond hearing. The opinion identifies her as a Jamaican citizen.

Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty recommended granting the petition in part. Applying the factors from Muse v. Sessions, he concluded that the length of Daciann D. B.’s detention had become unreasonable, the likely duration of future detention was indeterminate, and detention in a county jail resembled penal confinement. He also found that ICE had not delayed the removal proceedings and that Daciann D. B. had caused some delays, although she had not engaged in dilatory tactics. He recommended an individualized bond hearing, with the government bearing the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that no release conditions could ensure community safety or her appearance at future proceedings. He rejected her request for immediate release.

The Government’s Objections

The government argued that the court should rely on Demore v. Kim rather than the multi-factor approach used in Muse. It also argued that the Muse factors failed to account for congressional purposes behind mandatory detention, improperly emphasized the length and circumstances of detention, discounted delays attributed to Daciann D. B., and improperly placed the burden of proof on the government.

The court overruled those objections. After reviewing the record independently, the court agreed with Judge Docherty’s application of the relevant factors and conclusion that Daciann D. B. was entitled to an individualized bond hearing. The court also agreed that ICE must carry the burden at that hearing and must prove by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release and parole would ensure community safety or Daciann D. B.’s appearance at future immigration proceedings.

Order and Disposition

The court accepted the Report and Recommendation. It ordered that Daciann D. B.’s petition under § 2241 be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It denied her request for immediate release and required the respondent to ensure that she receives an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge within 21 days of the order. If no hearing occurs, Daciann D. B. must be released unless the court issues a further order.

At the hearing, the parties must be allowed to present evidence and argument about whether Daciann D. B. poses a danger to the community or is likely to flee if released. The immigration judge must place the burden of proof on ICE, and continued detention may be authorized only if ICE meets that burden by clear and convincing evidence.

The court also directed the clerk to substitute ICE Field Office Director Marcos Charles as the respondent for Immigration Custody Enforcement. The opinion states that counsel identified Marcos Charles as the ICE representative who controls Daciann D.’s custody and can produce her if necessary. Judgment was ordered entered accordingly.