Graham v. Decker

Background

Roland Graham, a lawful permanent resident, was held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Orange County Correctional Facility while his removal proceedings were pending. He was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). An immigration judge had ordered his removal to Jamaica, and his appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals remained pending.

Graham filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking immediate release. He also sought a preliminary injunction, which is a temporary court order issued before final judgment. Graham relied on the court’s authority to grant bail to a person seeking habeas relief in exceptional circumstances.

Graham’s Claims

Graham argued that his detention violated due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. First, he claimed that officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs because his stomach ulcers, osteoarthritis, facial cyst, persistent depressive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder allegedly placed him at increased risk from COVID-19. Second, he argued that the conditions of his confinement were punitive, even though he was being held in civil immigration detention rather than serving a criminal sentence.

Graham also pointed to his age, sex, race, and status as an immigrant detainee as factors that he said increased his risk. He asserted that the facility had problems with sanitation, social distancing, access to soap and cleaning supplies, and protection from infection.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the heightened standard for a mandatory preliminary injunction. Graham had to show a clear or substantial likelihood of success on the merits and a likelihood of irreparable harm, meaning harm that could not adequately be repaired later. The court also considered whether the evidence supported release under the standard for exceptional bail relief.

On the medical-needs claim, the court recognized that exposure to a communicable disease can constitute a serious medical need. But it concluded that Graham had not shown that his listed conditions or other asserted risk factors placed him at a substantially heightened risk of contracting COVID-19 or suffering more severe consequences from it. The court noted that the health conditions identified by Graham were not listed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the Mayo Clinic as conditions creating the relevant heightened risk.

The court also found insufficient evidence of deliberate indifference. Evidence submitted by the respondents described single-occupancy cells for immigration detainees, soap and cleaning supplies, regular cleaning, medical staff, instructions about handwashing and social distancing, medical screening, isolation for symptomatic people, suspended intake of new immigration detainees, and no confirmed COVID-19 cases at the facility at the relevant time. The court considered contrary declarations describing earlier conditions but gave them less weight because they predated the respondents’ more detailed submissions.

On the punitive-detention claim, the court held that Graham had not shown that his conditions, considered together with his individual health circumstances, amounted to punishment. The court therefore concluded that he had not shown a likelihood of success on that claim.

The court further concluded that Graham had not shown an imminent risk to his life, health, or safety or demonstrated irreparable harm. Because he failed to show both a clear or substantial likelihood of success and irreparable harm, the court did not weigh the balance of the equities or the public interest.

Disposition

Judge P. Kevin Castel denied Graham’s application for a preliminary injunction. The court separately denied his application for bail under the court’s inherent authority, finding that his evidence did not provide substantial support for his due-process claims or show that the facility’s conditions were constitutionally deficient. The opinion directed the Clerk to terminate the preliminary-injunction motion.