Pacheco Benavente v. Decker

Background

Jorge Donaldo Pacheco Benavente petitioned for a court order challenging his ongoing detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement during immigration removal proceedings. He asserted claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.

Benavente moved for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order. He asked the court to release him on his own recognizance and to bar the respondents from arresting him while his immigration proceedings were pending. Alternatively, he requested a bail hearing at which the respondents would have to show that continued detention was necessary and consistent with due process. He also sought release under Mapp v. Reno because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The opinion states that Benavente entered the United States without documents authorizing him to enter, live, or work there. He was served with a notice charging him as removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act, was transferred from the Office of Refugee Resettlement after turning 18, and was then placed in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. The agency considered placement with his maternal aunt but determined that detention was appropriate based on its assessment of danger to himself, danger to the community, and risk of flight.

Benavente argued that conditions at the Orange County Correctional Facility made it difficult to prevent COVID-19 infection. He alleged limited access to soap and sanitation supplies, shared objects that were not disinfected between uses, and an inability to maintain distance from others. He also asserted that chronic gastritis increased his risk of serious complications. The respondents said that no detainee or inmate at the facility had tested positive or shown symptoms at the relevant time, that one guard had tested positive but had not contacted Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainees, and that the facility had implemented preventive measures.

Legal standard

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary form of emergency relief. To obtain one, a party generally must show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, favorable balancing of the hardships, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. The court stated that the same standard applies to a temporary restraining order. Because the requested order would affect government action taken under a detention statute, the court applied the more demanding likelihood-of-success standard.

Administrative Procedure Act and Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act claims

Benavente argued that the respondents violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act by failing to consider placement in the least restrictive setting, including placement with his aunt. He argued that the same failure was arbitrary and unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The court rejected that argument for purposes of the requested preliminary relief. It relied on an agency record stating that least-restrictive placement had been considered and that the agency had determined that Benavente was a danger to himself, a danger to the community, and a significant flight risk. The record also listed his aunt's address, which the court viewed as showing that the agency knew she was a possible sponsor. The court therefore found that Benavente had not shown that the respondents failed to consider his aunt.

The court also said that agency decisions reviewed under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard receive substantial deference. It found no indication that the respondents had failed to follow the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and concluded that the decision to detain Benavente was not outside the bounds of reasoned decision-making in light of the information cited in the opinion. The court held that Benavente had not shown a likelihood of success on either claim.

Due process claim

The court explained that the Due Process Clause, rather than the Eighth Amendment, governs the treatment of federal civil detainees, but that civil detainees receive at least the protections afforded to criminally incarcerated people. For a conditions-of-confinement claim, a detainee must show an unreasonable risk of serious harm to health and deliberate indifference by the government. Deliberate indifference requires evidence that officials knew, or should have known, that failing to provide the claimed protection or treatment created a substantial health risk.

Benavente argued that the respondents were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs because the facility lacked adequate sanitation measures and protective equipment during the pandemic. The respondents described measures including separate housing for Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainees and county inmates, medical screening, isolation and testing for symptomatic people, separate housing for people exposed to confirmed cases, face masks, individual cells, social-distancing procedures, sanitation of housing units, and access to disinfectant, hand sanitizer, hot water, and soap.

Benavente disputed whether these measures were actually being implemented and argued that shared spaces and screening procedures still exposed detainees to risk. The court acknowledged that the respondents knew about his gastritis but noted that they did not classify him as high risk under the cited Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance. The court found that the guidance did not identify gastritis as a high-risk condition and that the petition did not allege direct exposure to COVID-19. It concluded that the respondents' classification decision was reasonable and that Benavente was unlikely to prove that officials knew or should have known that failing to apply additional precautions created a substantial risk to his health.

Because Benavente had not shown a likelihood of success, the court did not decide the other three preliminary-injunction factors: irreparable harm, the balance of the equities, and the public interest.

Request for release under Mapp v. Reno

The court explained that federal courts have limited authority to release a person on bail in special cases. Under Mapp v. Reno, the petitioner must show substantial claims and extraordinary circumstances making release necessary for the habeas remedy to be effective. Relying on its earlier analysis, the court found that Benavente had not raised substantial claims showing a likelihood of success. It therefore denied the requested Mapp relief.

Disposition

The court denied Benavente's motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. It also denied his request for a bail hearing and denied his request for release under Mapp v. Reno. The opinion does not state a final disposition of the underlying detention petition.