Ulger v. Barr

Background

Huseyin Ulger, who had been detained by the Department of Homeland Security since January 27, 2020, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release from Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. He was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), which requires detention of certain noncitizens who are charged with removability based on specified criminal convictions. The removal allegations against Ulger included overstaying a temporary visa and convictions for third-degree grand larceny, fifth-degree criminal possession of stolen property, and fourth-degree grand larceny.

Ulger argued that his continued detention violated substantive due process because his obesity and high blood pressure placed him at increased risk from COVID-19, and because the Orange County Correctional Facility’s precautions were inadequate. He asserted claims based on deliberate indifference to medical needs and allegedly punitive conditions of confinement. He also requested costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

The facility’s reported precautions

The respondents submitted evidence that detainees were screened for disabilities, fever, respiratory illness, and COVID-19 exposure. Detainees were monitored, isolated, tested, or medically evaluated as needed. Staff and vendors were screened before entering the facility, detainees had daily access to sick calls and an onsite medical infirmary, housing units were regularly cleaned and disinfected, hand sanitizer was provided, and the facility was operating within approved capacity. The respondents also stated that they had reviewed detainees under Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines and adjusted custody conditions when appropriate for people considered at higher risk.

The respondents stated that Ulger was not categorized as higher risk under those guidelines because his body-mass index was below the guideline’s severe-obesity measure, high blood pressure was not considered a higher-risk factor under the guidance being used, and he was not 65 or older. As of April 16, 2020, one detainee reportedly had possible COVID-19 symptoms, but the respondents reported no confirmed cases at the facility at that time.

Due process analysis

The court explained that an immigration detainee may establish a due process violation by showing that officials knew or should have known about a condition posing an excessive health risk and failed to take appropriate action. A detainee may also proceed by showing deliberate indifference to serious, unmet medical needs.

The court recognized that confinement can increase the risk of COVID-19 transmission, but it evaluated whether the respondents’ actions were reasonable in light of the general risk of contagion. It found the respondents’ evidence uncontroverted and concluded that the screening, monitoring, isolation, medical access, cleaning, hygiene supplies, and adjustments for higher-risk detainees were objectively reasonable.

The court also noted that Ulger did not identify a specific medical need that the respondents had failed to address. Although Ulger relied on other medical guidance and studies to argue that he was at high risk, the court held that the relevant question was whether the respondents’ reliance on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance was objectively reasonable. It found no basis to conclude that the reliance was unreasonable.

The court therefore held that Ulger had not shown that the respondents ignored a condition likely to cause serious illness, deliberately disregarded an excessive health risk, or otherwise violated substantive due process. It stated that the detention measures were imperfect but reasonable. Because it resolved the petition on the merits, the court did not address the parties’ arguments about whether it could hold a bond hearing and order Ulger released.

Disposition

The court denied the amended petition in its entirety. It also denied Ulger’s request for costs and attorneys’ fees because he was not the prevailing party. The court requested that the Clerk enter judgment in the respondents’ favor and close the case.

Classification

This is a substantive ruling because the court reached the merits of Ulger’s substantive due process claims and decided that the detention conditions did not violate his constitutional rights.