De Melo v. Decker

Background

The opinion’s caption lists Andre Buriti De Melo and others as petitioners, but the factual and legal discussion identifies the petitioner as Jose Velesaca. The Government moved to dismiss Velesaca’s petition under Rule 12(b)(1), which allows dismissal when a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction—the legal authority to decide the case.

Velesaca, identified in the opinion as an Ecuadorian citizen who had lived in the United States since 2007, was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement while removal proceedings were pending. He alleged that Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Orange County Jail failed to protect him from the serious risk posed by COVID-19 and asserted substantive and procedural due-process claims. He sought release, protection from re-detention during the proceedings, and other relief.

On April 13, 2020, the court granted Velesaca’s request for a preliminary injunction and ordered his immediate release from immigration custody. The injunction also barred the respondents from re-detaining him during the pandemic. The petition itself, however, remained unresolved.

The parties’ arguments

The Government argued that the petition had become moot because Velesaca had been released and it challenged detention conditions that existed in March 2020. Velesaca argued that his release did not end the dispute because Immigration and Customs Enforcement could arrest and detain him again at any time, particularly because his removal proceedings remained pending and the Government had not promised not to re-detain him.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts to deciding actual cases and controversies. A case becomes moot when the plaintiff no longer faces an injury that a favorable court decision could remedy. The court acknowledged that Immigration and Customs Enforcement could re-arrest and re-detain Velesaca and that the removal proceedings had not ended.

Nevertheless, the court concluded that the petition was moot. Velesaca challenged specific conditions at immigration detention facilities as they existed in March 2020, rather than detention conditions at any place or time. Because of developments in COVID-19 precautions and detention practices, the court found no reasonable expectation that Velesaca would face those same conditions if he were detained again. The court also noted that it was unknown where he would be detained in the future and whether conditions at that facility would be the same.

Disposition

The court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the action as moot. The court stated that this dismissal would not prevent Velesaca from filing another habeas petition challenging future allegedly unconstitutional detention conditions if he were detained again. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case and send the parties appeal instructions.