Halladene v. Decker

Background

Humphrey Hugh Halladene sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal statute allowing a person to challenge unlawful detention. He challenged his ongoing detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement while removal proceedings were pending under the agency's discretionary detention authority in 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). He was being held at Hudson County Jail in Kearny, New Jersey.

Halladene alleged that his detention violated due process because the respondents had not adequately protected him from COVID-19 and had not provided adequate medical care in light of his increased risk of serious illness. The opinion states that he was 54 years old, had hypertension and high cholesterol, and had a body-mass index of 30.51, which the court described as obese at the lowest end of the relevant range.

Requested Relief and Legal Standard

Halladene moved for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order requiring his release subject to reasonable conditions and barring his arrest for civil immigration detention unless the respondents could show that detention created no additional risk of COVID-19 illness or death. Alternatively, he requested a bail hearing at which the respondents would have to prove that continued detention was necessary and consistent with due process.

The court explained that preliminary injunctive relief is extraordinary. Halladene had to show, among other things, a likelihood of success on the merits. Because the requested injunction would affect government action taken under a detention statute, the court applied the more demanding likelihood-of-success standard.

Protection From COVID-19

The court described the governing due-process standard for conditions of confinement as requiring proof that the conditions created an unreasonable risk of serious damage to health and that the government acted with deliberate indifference. Deliberate indifference means that the government knew, or should have known, that failing to address the condition posed a substantial risk to the detainee's health.

Halladene argued that the jail lacked adequate screening and testing, cleaning and disinfection, sanitation supplies, food, and medical attention. The respondents presented evidence that the facility screened detainees during intake, isolated symptomatic detainees, monitored exposed detainees, screened staff and vendors, provided protective equipment and masks, sanitized housing units, conducted medical checks, and supplied soap, disinfectant wipes, and water. The respondents also described special protocols for detainees considered at high risk under Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria.

Halladene disputed whether these measures had been implemented. He stated that his temperature had been checked only twice, that he received no medical attention after developing a cough and chills, that broad cleaning and disinfection had not occurred in his housing unit, and that he had been near detainees with possible COVID-19 symptoms. Because the parties disputed important facts, the court concluded that it could not find that Halladene was likely to succeed on his inadequate-protection claim based on the submissions then before it.

Medical-Care Claim

For the inadequate-medical-care claim, the court required Halladene to show a serious medical need and deliberate indifference to that need. Halladene argued that his medical conditions placed him at high risk of severe COVID-19 and that the respondents had not taken specific measures to reduce that risk.

The respondents had COVID-19-prevention procedures for detainees classified as high risk, but they did not classify Halladene as high risk under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria cited in the opinion. The court noted that those criteria did not specifically identify a body-mass index of 30, high cholesterol, hypertension, or age 54. The court nevertheless recognized that Halladene's conditions increased his risk of serious COVID-19 illness. It found that the respondents' use of the cited criteria was reasonable and concluded that Halladene was unlikely to prove that the respondents knew or should have known that not applying additional safety protocols to him posed a substantial health risk.

Disposition

Judge George B. Daniels concluded that Halladene had not met his burden for preliminary injunctive relief. The court therefore did not reach irreparable harm, the balance of the equities, or the public interest. The court denied Halladene's motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, denied his request for a bail hearing, and directed the clerk to close the motion.