Diaz Sicap v. Decker

Background

Jose Eliberto Diaz Sicap, an immigration detainee at the Orange County Correctional Facility, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release from detention during the COVID-19 pandemic. He named Thomas Decker, Chad Wolf, and Carl E. Dubois in their official capacities. The opinion states that Diaz Sicap had been detained at the facility since February 25, 2020, in connection with removal proceedings, but that the status of those proceedings was unknown.

Diaz Sicap alleged that, when he filed the petition in late March 2020, he had a fever and dry cough and had been placed in medical isolation. He claimed that the facility's conditions made exposure and spread of COVID-19 especially dangerous because detainees lived, slept, and used bathrooms near one another. He also alleged that detainees could not adequately practice social distancing and had limited access to soap and no access to hand sanitizer, gloves, or disinfectant wipes. He sought immediate release, an order preventing his transfer from the New York City area while the case was pending, and an order preventing his re-detention during removal proceedings. Alternatively, he requested a bond hearing.

Legal standard

To obtain a writ of habeas corpus under § 2241, a petitioner must show that he is being held in violation of the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty. The petitioner bears the burden of proving that claim by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that it is more likely than not true.

The court applied a substantive due process standard requiring a detainee to show both a serious medical need and deliberate indifference to that need. A serious medical need involves an urgent condition that may cause death, degeneration, or extreme pain. Deliberate indifference requires more than negligence; it involves intentional or reckless failure to take reasonable steps despite knowledge, or reason to know, that the condition creates an excessive risk to health or safety.

Court's analysis

The court held that Diaz Sicap had not shown a serious medical need warranting release. It described his allegations as general concerns about the health risks of COVID-19 and noted that he did not allege that he was immunocompromised or had an underlying medical condition that placed him at heightened risk of death, severe illness, or extreme pain. He also submitted no supporting documents or medical records.

The court compared the case with other COVID-19 detention cases in which detainees had shown underlying conditions or other circumstances making them particularly vulnerable to severe harm. Because Diaz Sicap had not alleged any such condition, the court held that he could not establish the serious-medical-need requirement. The court therefore did not decide whether the respondents had acted with deliberate indifference.

The court also denied the alternative request for a bond hearing. It explained that a habeas court may grant bail only in unusual cases or when extraordinary or exceptional circumstances make bail necessary to make the habeas remedy effective. The court found no such circumstances. It further noted that the petition did not say whether Diaz Sicap had received an initial bond hearing before an immigration judge, creating possible exhaustion problems. The court treated that deficiency as an additional ground for denying habeas relief.

Disposition

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and dismissed the case. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The opinion did not decide whether the detention facility's COVID-19 precautions amounted to deliberate indifference because the court found that Diaz Sicap had not established a serious medical need.