Gutierrez v. Dubois

Background

Ramon Gutierrez, who had been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement since June 2019 at the Orange County Jail, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He sought immediate release or, alternatively, a bond hearing. He also requested a temporary restraining order directing his release because of the risks he said COVID-19 posed to him. The amended petition asserted four claims: substantive due process, procedural due process, an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and unlawful detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).

Gutierrez alleged that he had high blood pressure, asthma, a heart arrhythmia with a history of minor stroke, and serious lower-back disease requiring surgery. He argued that his health had declined in detention and that the jail had failed to provide adequate medical care. At the time of the decision, an immigration judge had ordered him removed, but his appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals remained pending.

Section 1225(b)(2) claim

Gutierrez argued that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) authorized detention only while removal proceedings were pending and that his proceedings were no longer pending because an immigration judge had ordered his removal. The court rejected that argument because Gutierrez’s appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals was still pending. The court denied this claim.

Fourth Amendment claim

Gutierrez alleged that his arrest and detention resulted from an unlawful seizure connected to his extradition from the Dominican Republic in 2009. The court held that the amended petition did not provide facts supporting that claim. It also declined to rely on new factual assertions made for the first time in Gutierrez’s reply brief. The court found that his remaining allegations were speculative and lacked enough factual detail to state a claim. The court denied the Fourth Amendment claim.

Substantive due process and medical-care claims

The court explained that the Fifth Amendment protects civil detainees from deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. “Deliberate indifference” requires both a serious medical need and facts showing that officials knew, or should have known, that failing to provide treatment created a substantial risk of serious harm.

The court accepted that Gutierrez’s medical conditions constituted a serious medical need, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. It nevertheless found that he had not shown deliberate indifference. The Orange County Jail had implemented measures including masks, screening, testing and isolation procedures, cleaning, hand-hygiene supplies, meals in cells, and opportunities for social distancing. The record also stated that no inmates or detainees had tested positive or shown symptoms at the jail as of the relevant dates, and that staff members who tested positive had not had contact with ICE detainees.

The court also considered Gutierrez’s complaints about non-COVID-19 care. It noted that he had received treatment for his heart condition, including a catheterization eight days after it was ordered. A disagreement between medical professionals about the proper heart medication did not establish deliberate indifference. The court found that the allegations about the cancelled back surgery were insufficient and that the jail’s provision of an inhaler and access to a breathing treatment twice daily did not show deliberate indifference merely because Gutierrez wanted that treatment available in his cell. The court denied the substantive due process claim.

Procedural due process and bond hearing

Gutierrez argued that his prolonged detention without a bond hearing violated procedural due process. The court concluded that the Supreme Court’s decision in Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei did not permit indefinite detention without a bond hearing under § 1225(b)(2) absent specific national-security concerns. It therefore evaluated whether Gutierrez’s detention had become unreasonably prolonged based on his individual circumstances.

The court considered factors including the length of detention, responsibility for delay, defenses to removal, the comparison between immigration detention and prior imprisonment, the detention facility, whether removal proceedings were nearing completion, and the government’s interest in continued detention. Gutierrez had been detained for twelve months without a bond hearing, which somewhat favored him. The court found, however, that most other factors were neutral or favored the respondents. In particular, the court found that Gutierrez had caused much of the delay by repeatedly pursuing or declining opportunities related to voluntary departure, that he had spent much longer in state prison than in immigration detention, and that the government had a compelling interest in detaining him because of the serious drug-trafficking offense underlying his removability. The court denied the procedural due process claim.

Other motions and disposition

The respondents moved to seal Gutierrez’s medical records. The court found that the records were judicial documents subject to a presumption of public access, but held that Gutierrez’s considerable privacy interest in sensitive medical information outweighed that presumption. The court granted the motion to seal.

The court’s conclusion states that the petition was denied, Gutierrez’s motion for a temporary restraining order was denied, the respondents’ motion for an extension of time retroactive to an earlier date was granted with consent, and the clerk was directed to terminate the motions and close the case.