Martinez Roman v. Decker

Background

Marco Martinez Roman filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention. He named Thomas Decker, Chad Wolf, and William Barr as respondents in their official capacities. Roman had been detained at the Orange County Jail since Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested him on September 23, 2019 and began removal proceedings. His removal case and his appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of removal were pending.

Roman had also received a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The immigration judge denied bond after finding that Roman had not adequately shown that he was not a danger to the community, without deciding whether he was a flight risk. Roman appealed that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the appeal remained pending when the district court ruled.

Roman reported gout, chronic stage 2 hypertension, obesity, and an increased risk from COVID-19. He argued that officials had been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs and had failed to protect him adequately from COVID-19. He also argued that the bond hearing violated due process because he had to prove that he was eligible for release and because the immigration judge did not properly consider his ability to pay or alternatives to detention.

Medical-care and conditions-of-confinement claims

The court explained that a civil detainee’s medical-care claim requires proof of a serious medical need and deliberate indifference. Deliberate indifference requires more than negligence; it requires a failure to take reasonable care despite knowledge, or reason to know, that the condition posed an excessive health or safety risk.

The court concluded that Roman had not shown that his treated hypertension, gout, and obesity created a medical need requiring release from detention. It also considered his argument that those conditions, combined with the risk of COVID-19, created a serious medical risk. The court recognized that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identified hypertension, weakened immunity, and obesity as factors associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 illness.

The court nevertheless found no deliberate indifference. It relied on the jail’s measures, including individual cells for immigration detainees, meals served in cells, masks, cleaning and disinfecting supplies, repeated sanitation, screening of staff and vendors, quarantine for new admissions, and the absence of confirmed COVID-19 cases among detainees or inmates as of the dates discussed in the opinion. The court also relied on Roman’s medical records, which showed numerous medical visits, monitoring, and prescriptions for his conditions, including gout medication and prednisone.

The court therefore denied Roman’s substantive due process claim. It also denied his related conditions-of-confinement claim, explaining that Roman acknowledged that claim merged with his deliberate-indifference claim.

Bond-hearing claim

The court did not reach the merits of Roman’s argument that his bond hearing violated procedural due process. Although no statute required exhaustion of administrative remedies before challenging a bond decision, the court stated that it routinely requires exhaustion as a judicially created, or prudential, requirement.

The court found that Roman had not exhausted his remedies because his appeal of the immigration judge’s bond decision remained pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals. It also found that none of the recognized exceptions applied. The Board could potentially reverse the finding that Roman was dangerous, order another proceeding, or release him on bond. The court further found that continued detention, separation from Roman’s children, and the asserted COVID-19 risk did not excuse exhaustion on the facts presented.

The court denied the procedural due process claim without prejudice. That disposition preserved the claim’s status for purposes of the court’s ruling but did not decide whether the bond hearing itself satisfied due process.

Disposition

The court denied the substantive due process claim and denied the procedural due process claim without prejudice. It directed the clerk to enter judgment dismissing the writ, close the case, and close all pending motions.