Grant v. Decker

Background

Dudley Grant, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release from detention. He later moved for a temporary restraining order, an emergency order providing immediate relief. Grant alleged that continued detention violated due process because officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Grant was 53 years old and had been admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1971. He was detained at Hudson County Correctional Facility in New Jersey while removal proceedings remained pending. The facility was county-run and housed ICE detainees under an agreement with the federal government. Grant reported diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, mobility limitations requiring a wheelchair, hearing and vision impairments, an auditory-canal tumor, multiple hernias, and cognitive impairments. He alleged that the facility had not adequately managed his diabetes or protected medically vulnerable detainees from COVID-19.

ICE and facility officials described screening, isolation, sanitation, and other COVID-19 precautions. They nevertheless denied Grant’s request for humanitarian release after custody reviews. Grant proposed living with his niece and self-quarantining there while his removal proceedings continued.

Jurisdiction and Custodian

The court held that Thomas Decker, the ICE Field Office Director for the New York City Field Office, was Grant’s immediate and legal custodian for purposes of the habeas petition. Although Grant was physically held at a county facility in New Jersey, the court found that facility officials could not independently control his custody or release him without ICE’s authority. The court therefore declined to treat the county facility’s warden as the required respondent.

Temporary Restraining Order

The court applied the standard for a preliminary injunction, which requires likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, a favorable balance of the equities, and consistency with the public interest. Because the requested relief required release, the court also required a clear showing that Grant was entitled to it or that denial would cause very serious harm.

The court found that Grant faced irreparable harm because his medical conditions made him more likely to suffer severe illness or death if he contracted COVID-19, and detention increased his risk of infection. The court concluded that Grant had a serious medical need and that officials had acted with deliberate indifference by failing to take sufficient special measures to protect him, even though they knew of his significant vulnerability. General COVID-19 precautions did not adequately address his particular medical risks and cognitive impairments.

The court also found that the balance of the equities and public interest favored release. It recognized Grant’s prior conviction, supervised-release violations, and potential danger to the public, but found safeguards including bail conditions, sex-offender monitoring, mobility limitations, pandemic-related restrictions, and the absence of computers in his niece’s home. The court found no flight risk because Grant had identified a responsible custodian, had no reported history of failing to appear, and faced health and travel restrictions.

Habeas Relief and Disposition

The court held that Grant had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that continued detention violated his due-process rights. It granted the habeas petition to the extent it secured his release. The court treated the temporary restraining order as a preliminary injunction because the issues had been fully briefed.

The final order granted Grant’s motion for a temporary restraining order securing his release under the conditions previously announced. It also granted his habeas petition to the extent it secured his release and denied it in all other respects. The clerk was directed to close the case.