Medeiros et al v. Martin et al
Filing
28
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION. So Ordered by District Judge William E. Smith on 5/1/2020. (Jackson, Ryan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
______________________________
)
ADRIANO DA SILVA MEDEIROS;
)
JOSE MARCOS PALACIOS MOLINA; )
and LUIS ORLANDO DURAND LUYO; )
)
Petitioners-Plaintiffs, )
)
v.
)
C.A. No. 20-178 WES
)
DANIEL W. MARTIN, Warden,
)
Donald W. Wyatt Detention
)
Facility; CENTRAL FALLS
)
DETENTION FACILITY
)
CORPORATION; MATTHEW ALBENCE, )
Acting Director of U.S.
)
Immigration and Customs
)
Enforcement; and TODD LYONS, )
Acting Field Office Director, )
U.S. Immigration and Customs )
Enforcement,
)
)
Respondents-Defendants. )
______________________________)
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Jose Marco Palacios Molina and Luis Orlando Durand Luyo
(“Petitioners”) are civil detainees held at the Donald W. Wyatt
Detention Facility (“Wyatt”) in Central Falls, Rhode Island.
See
generally Mem. Law Supp. Pet’rs-Pls.’ Mot. TRO and/or Prelim.
Injunctive Relief (“Pet’rs’ Mem.”), ECF No. 10-1.
On April 18,
2020, they filed an emergency petition for a writ of habeas corpus
seeking
declaratory
and
injunctive
to
the
conditions of their confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic.
See
generally Compl., ECF No. 1.
relief
relating
The next day, on April 19, 2020,
Petitioners
moved:
(“Respondents”)
(1)
from
to
enjoin
transferring
them
Defendant-Respondents
outside
this
Court’s
jurisdiction throughout this action; and (2) for their immediate
release from Wyatt.
See generally Pet’rs’ Mot. TRO and/or Prelim.
Injunctive Relief, ECF No. 10.
On April 22, 2020, this Court held a hearing on the Motion.
In the interim, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)
released Petitioner Adriano da Silva Medeiros from Wyatt, see
Status Report Concerning Petitioner Medeiros, ECF No. 18; this
Motion is therefore DENIED AS MOOT related to him.
On
April
24,
2020,
this
Court
Order
GRANTING
Petitioners’ Motion as to the remaining two Petitioners.
See Apr.
24, 2020 Order (“Order”), ECF No. 24.
issued
an
This Memorandum of Decision
further explains the reasons for the Court’s decision.
I.
Discussion
Courts award preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining
orders upon a showing of “(1) a substantial likelihood of success
on the merits, (2) a significant risk of irreparable harm if the
injunction is withheld, (3) a favorable balance of hardships, and
(4) a fit (or lack of friction) between the injunction and the
public interest.”
NuVasive, Inc. v. Day, 954 F.3d 439, 443 (1st
Cir. 2020) (quoting Nieves-Márquez v. Puerto Rico, 353 F.3d 108,
120 (1st Cir. 2003)); see also Harris v. Wall, 217 F. Supp. 3d
541, 552 (D.R.I. 2016) (recognizing the test for a preliminary
2
injunction is the same as the test for a temporary restraining
order).
A. Irreparable Harm
Information about COVID-19 is rapidly evolving, but this much
is known: the World Health Organization (the “WHO”) and the Centers
for Disease Control (the “CDC”) have identified certain underlying
medical conditions, including diabetes and asthma, that increase
the risk of severe complications or death upon contracting COVID19.
See Decl. of Joseph J. Amon, Ph.D. MSPH (“Amon Decl.”) ¶¶ 7-
8, ECF No. 1-7 (citing the WHO and the CDC); see also Decl. of Dr.
Jonathan Louis Golob (“Golob Decl.”) ¶ 3, ECF No. 1-6.
In the
event of infection, advanced life support is necessary for these
riskier populations, including “positive pressure ventilation, and
in extreme cases, extracorporeal mechanical oxygenation.”
Decl.
¶
8.
“[A]
prolonged
recovery
is
expected”
Golob
for
this
population, “including the need for extensive rehabilitation for
profound deconditioning, loss of digits, neurological damage, and
loss of respiratory capacity”.
Id. ¶ 4.
Although difficult to
quantify, Petitioners cite data that the fatality rate among the
riskiest population is about fifteen percent. See id. At present,
there is no known preventative treatment or cure.
Id. ¶ 10.
Each Petitioner is diagnosed with a CDC-recognized underlying
health condition that makes him especially susceptible to risks
associated with complications of COVID-19.
3
See id. ¶ 14; Decl. of
Elizabeth Toll, M.D. (“Toll Decl.”) ¶ 7, ECF No. 1-5.
Petitioner
Palacios Molina is diagnosed with diabetes. Pet’rs’ Mem. 18; Decl.
of Jose Marcos Palacios Molina ¶¶ 5-7, ECF No. 1-2.
Durand
Luyo
impairment.
has
severe
asthma,
as
well
as
Petitioner
potential
lung
Pet’rs’ Mem. 18; Decl. of Luis Orlando Durand Luyo ¶¶
4-6, ECF No. 1-3. Respondents do not contest that these conditions
leave Petitioners vulnerable if they are exposed to COVID-19.
See
Basank v. Decker, No. 20 Civ. 2518 (AT), 2020 WL 1481503, at *4
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2020) (noting that those rendered vulnerable by
underlying medical conditions identified by the CDC are at a
heightened
risk
of
“particularly
acute”
and
constitutionally
significant health risks); see also Valenzuela Arias v. Decker,
No. 20 Civ. 2802 (AT), 2020 WL 1847986, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10,
2020) (same) (citing cases).
It is also well known that congregate living, such as nursing
homes, cruise ships, aircraft carriers, and that at Wyatt and other
detention
facilities
contracting COVID-19.
and
prisons,
magnifies
the
risk
of
Toll Decl. ¶ 5; Decl. of Dr. Dora Schriro
(“Schriro Decl.”) ¶ 17, ECF No. 10-2; Valenzuela Arias, 2020 WL
1847986, at *4 (highlighting “the threat that COVID-19 poses to
individuals held in jails and other detention facilities.” (citing
cases)); United States v. Nkanga, No. 18-CR-713 (JMF), 2020 WL
1529535,
at
*1
(S.D.N.Y.
Mar.
31,
2020), reconsideration
denied, No. 18-CR-713 (JMF), 2020 WL 1695417 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7,
4
2020) (“Those detained in jails and prisons face particularly grave
danger.”).
As of the Order, Wyatt had confirmed one case, and
sixty-five detainee tests pending. See ICE Resp’ts’ Opp’n to Appl.
for TRO and Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Gov’t Opp’n”) Ex. A
(“Apr. 21 Status Report”), ECF No. 21-2; see also Apr. 23 Status
Report 1, available at https://www.rid.uscourts.gov/re-donald-wwyatt-detention-center-20-mc-00004-jjm
2020).
(last
visited
Apr.
30,
Petitioners submit data reflecting the potential for
exponential rate of transmission in these facilities.
See Golob
Decl. ¶ 12 (describing that, over twelve days, the number of
confirmed cases at a jail complex in New York City rose from one
to
nearly
200).
Now,
at
the
time
of
the
issuance
of
this
Memorandum, nine detainee cases have been confirmed and twenty
tests are still outstanding.
at
Apr. 30 Status Report 1, available
https://www.rid.uscourts.gov/re-donald-w-wyatt-detention-
center-20-mc-00004-jjm (last visited Apr. 30, 2020).
Acknowledging
this
increased
risk
and
adhering
to
CDC
guidance, Wyatt has taken considerable steps to control the rate
of infection.
See generally Apr. 21 Status Report.
The facility
is operating at around 75 percent capacity, having released or
transferred over 100 detainees.
Id. at 1, 3.
It has implemented
practices through which recommended social-distancing measures may
be followed more faithfully.
Id. at 3-6.
For example, detainees
are directed not to congregate in groups.
5
Id. at 3; Decl. of
Daniel W. Martin (“Martin Decl.”) ¶¶ 11-14, ECF No. 21-3.
Wyatt
is also allowing detainees some flexibility so they can maintain
distance, including granting additional access to the recreation
yard and permission to eat meals in their cells.
Report 3; Martin Decl. ¶¶ 11-14.
Apr. 21 Status
New detainees are medically
screened for symptoms and Wyatt has shown a plan of action for
confirmed cases.
Daniel
W.
Apr. 21 Status Report 4, 6-9; Suppl. Decl. of
Martin
(“Martin
Suppl.
Decl.”)
¶
6,
ECF
No.
12-1
(describing quarantine measures for new detainees); see Apr. 23
Status Report 6-8 (describing 16-day quarantine process for new
detainees); id. at 8-9 (overviewing protocols in the event of a
positive case).
The facility has also taken steps to supplement
its sanitization practices.
Martin Decl. ¶ 6, 22-28.
health screenings.
Apr. 21 Status Report 4-5, 10-11;
It recently conducted facility-wide
See Apr. 23 Status Report 16.
But implementation of these measures has not been without
difficulty.
For example, Wyatt has had trouble obtaining hand
sanitizer in the market.
¶ 6.
Apr. 21 Status Report 10; Martin Decl.
Social-distancing practices, such as maintaining at least
six feet of distance between persons, cannot be guaranteed.
See,
e.g., Schriro Decl. ¶¶ 24, 40 (describing ICE proposition that,
“for all those who remain detained, ‘wherever possible, all staff
and detainees should maintain a distance of six feet from one
another’
and
otherwise
adhere
6
to
CDC
guidelines,
where
practicable”)
(emphasis
added).
Additionally,
Petitioners,
through their declarations, raise doubts that Wyatt’s measures are
consistently practiced.
See, e.g., Suppl. Decl. of Luis Orlando
Durand Luyo (“Durand Luyo Suppl. Decl.”) ¶¶ 4-9, ECF No. 19-3;
Suppl. Decl. of Jose Marcos Palacios Molina (“Palacios Molina
Suppl. Decl.”) ¶¶ 3-12, ECF No. 19-4.
Nor can Wyatt effectively screen out potentially infected
persons from entering the facility.
Apr. 21 Status Report 4.
See Schriro Decl. ¶¶ 16, 24;
Although Wyatt staff are directed to
refrain from entering the facility if they exhibit symptoms of
COVID-19, this does not control for either asymptomatic or presymptomatic transmission.
See Apr. 21 Status Report 4; Second
Declaration of Joseph J. Amon, Ph.D., MSPH (“Amon Second Decl.”)
¶
9,
ECF
No.
19-1
(describing
that
best
practices,
given
asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission, is to test staff
and detainees often); Golob Decl. ¶ 6.
And while vendors and
contractors now are allowed only limited access to the facility,
some access is necessary and unavoidable.
Report 5.
See Apr. 21 Status
Wyatt’s efforts are hindered even more by the national
and, thus, facility shortage of testing.
See Amon Second Decl. ¶
9-10 (addressing the lack of testing and summarizing that Wyatt
admits it lacks adequate testing “on hand”).
To date, it has
tested ninety-six detainees up from just three last week.
Apr. 30
Status Report 1; Apr. 23 Status Report 1; see Golob Decl. ¶ 7
7
(highlighting that a lack of proven COVID-19 cases is “functionally
meaningless” to evaluate risk of transmission where there is a
lacking “comprehensive and rigorous testing regime”).
But see
Apr. 23 Status Report 17 (explaining Wyatt is working with the
Rhode Island Department of Health to facilitate staff testing at
local sites).
The
conclusion
cumulative
that
effect
Wyatt’s
of
these
current
unknowns
precautions
leads
cannot
to
the
absolutely
“identify infected individuals and ensure that they do not come
into contact with other people living and working in” the facility.
Schriro Decl. ¶ 41; cf. Dawson v. Asher, No. C20-0409JLR-MAT, 2020
WL 1304557, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 19, 2020) (finding no likely
irreparable injury where the petitioners did not point to evidence
of an outbreak or inadequate precautionary measures).
are
especially
vulnerable
to
not
only
risk
of
Petitioners
infection
as
detainees in a congregate living facility, Valenzuela Arias, 2020
WL 1847986, at *5, but also to risk of serious complications as
members of the medically vulnerable population.
7-8; Golob Decl. ¶ 3; Toll Decl. ¶ 7-9.
See Amon Decl. ¶¶
And “it is more than mere
speculation that the virus will continue to spread and pose a
danger” absent further efforts to “stop the spread”.
Wilson v.
Williams, No. 4:20-CV-00794, 2020 WL 1940882, at *9 (N.D. Ohio
Apr. 22, 2020).
8
The Court does not doubt that Wyatt’s precautions may be
adequate to ensure the safety of many if not most detainees, but
that is not the question presently before the Court. Because these
Petitioners’
health
issues
distinguish
them
from
a
typical
detainee, see generally Toll Decl., measures designed to mitigate
the spread of infection, even perfectly executed, are inadequate
to protect vulnerable persons like them.
¶
16
(summarizing
opinion
that
See, e.g., Schriro Decl.
ICE’s
plans
are
generally
inadequate); see Basank, 2020 WL 1481503, at *5 (“These measures
are patently insufficient to protect Petitioners.”).
The Court
thus concludes that Petitioners, absent the requested relief, are
at a significant risk of irreparable harm.
B.
Substantial Likelihood of Success on the Merits
In their Petition, Petitioners marry their allegations of
unconstitutional
guarantees.
conditions
Pet’rs’ Mem. 22.
of
confinement
to
due
process
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids the government
from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law.
U.S. Const. amend. V.
Liberty interests are
implicated when a pretrial detainee claims “he has been subjected
to unconstitutional conditions of confinement.”
Rivas, 424 F.3d 5, 18 (1st Cir. 2005).
Surprenant v.
Implicit in any detention
is a constitutionally imposed duty to provide minimum necessities,
including those “basic human needs—e.g., food, clothing, shelter,
9
medical care, and reasonable safety”.
DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty.
Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 200 (1989).
Without
a
conviction,
conditions
“amount to punishment of the detainee.”
of
confinement
may
not
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S.
520, 535 (1979); Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 247374 (2015); see also Banks v. Booth, No. CV 20-849(CKK), 2020 WL
1914896,
at
*5
(D.D.C.
Apr.
19,
2020).
Conditions
are
constitutional, and not an unconstitutional punishment, so long as
they
are
“reasonably
objective.”
related
to
a
legitimate
governmental
Bell, 441 U.S. at 539; see also Youngberg v. Romeo,
457 U.S. 307, 322 (1982); E.D. v. Sharkey, 928 F.3d 299, 307 (3rd
Cir. 2019).
Petitioners must prove that Respondents’ conduct is “‘not
rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective or that
it [was] excessive in relation to that purpose.’”
v.
Toledo-Davila,
813
F.3d
64,
70
(1st
Cir.
Miranda-Rivera
2016)
(quoting
Kingsley, 135 S. Ct. at 2473-74) (analyzing claim of excessive
force); see also Banks, 2020 WL 1914896, at *5.
At this stage,
Petitioners have the burden of showing a likelihood of success in
proving that Respondents’ conduct is “objectively unreasonable”.
Kingsley,
135
S.
Ct.
at
2473-74.
Both
parties
agree
that
“objective unreasonableness” is the appropriate benchmark. 1
The parties’ briefing also analyzes the stricter
“deliberate indifference” standard born from the Eighth Amendment;
1
10
Viewed through this “objective unreasonableness” prism, the
Court finds that Petitioners have met their burden.
above,
Petitioners
congregate
living
have
established
increases
not
Petitioners’
only
risk
As detailed
that
of
Wyatt’s
contracting
COVID-19, but also, and of greater constitutional significance,
that their underlying medical conditions increase their risk of
severe complications of COVID-19. See Golob Decl. ¶ 14; Toll Decl.
¶ 7; see Banks, 2020 WL 1914896, at *6 (articulating the standard
for pretrial detainees as whether the respondents “knew or should
have known that the jail conditions posed an excessive risk to
their health”); see also Savino v. Souza, No. 20-10617-WGY, 2020
WL 1703844, at *7 (D. Mass. Apr. 8, 2020) (applying the Eighth
Amendment, hypothesizing that “it may be easier for [d]etainees
who are at heightened risk of harm from COVID-19 to prove the
‘substantial risk of serious harm’ prong of the inquiry than it
will be for healthier [d]etainees who lack special risk factors.”).
At this point, “[t]he risk of contracting COVID-19 in tightlyconfined spaces, especially jails, [is] ‘exceedingly obvious.’”
Valenzuela Arias, 2020 WL 1847986, at *6 (quoting Basank, 2020 WL
1481503, at *5); Pet’rs’ Mem. 18-19 (describing that Respondents
learned of the vulnerability of high-risk detainees); id. at 28-
the Court need not reach this issue inasmuch as the parties agreed
at the hearing “objective unreasonableness” is the applicable
standard. See Gov’t Opp’n 8-9; Pets’ Mot. 22-23.
11
31 (detailing direct and circumstantial evidence supporting that
Respondents are aware of the risk to Petitioners).
Moreover,
courts have held that precautions failing to ensure reasonable
safety cannot be reasonable.
See Zaya v. Adducci, No. 20-10921,
2020 WL 1903172, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 18, 2020) (citing Helling
v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993)) (analyzing the petitioner’s
claim under the Eighth Amendment).
To be clear, the Court is not holding that “the fact of
detention itself [is] an ‘excessive’ condition solely due to the
risk of a communicable disease outbreak . . . .”
1304557, at *2.
Dawson, 2020 WL
Rather, the Court is persuaded by Petitioners’
evidence that COVID-19 has infiltrated Wyatt, and that Wyatt’s
increased precautions, although addressing generalized needs of
detainees,
“do
nothing
and unmet medical
needs
to
of
alleviate
the[se]
the specific,
high-risk
serious,
detainees,
who
require greater precautions in light of their correspondingly
greater
risk
of severe illness
if
they
contract
COVID-19.”
Barbecho v. Decker, No. 20-cv-2821 (AJN), 2020 WL 1876328, at *2,
5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2020) (emphasis in original) (analyzing Eighth
Amendment
guarantees
by
way
of
the
deliberate
indifference
standard cognized through the Due Process Clause).
Accordingly,
the Court is satisfied that Petitioners have shown a likelihood of
success
of
showing
Respondents’
precautions
are
objectively unreasonable as to these particular Petitioners.
See
12
COVID-19
Amon
Second
Decl.
¶
8
(underscoring
the
paucity
of
measures
designed to identify high-risk detainees and to protect them from
contracting COVID-19).
C.
Balancing Hardships and Public Interest
Analyzing the final two requirements together, both a balance
of the hardships and an evaluation of the public interest favor
Petitioners.
Respondents cite public and governmental interests
in enforcement of immigration law generally, enforcement of prompt
removal orders, and, specific here, assurance of Petitioners’
appearance at future proceedings.
Gov’t Opp’n 15.
Relevantly,
Petitioner Palacios Molina’s appeal to the Board of Immigration
Appeals remains pending.
See Decl. of Assistant Field Office
Director Alan Greenbaum (“Greenbaum Decl.”) ¶ 18, ECF No. 21-1.
But the Court is satisfied that Respondents have alternative means
to ensure these interests, including, for example, electronic
monitoring mechanisms.
As
Petitioners
exercised
detainees.
their
See Schriro Decl. ¶¶ 42-47.
highlight,
discretion
to
Respondents
release
have
historically
medically
Pet’rs’ Mem. 35; Schriro Decl. ¶ 22.
vulnerable
And, in these
recent times, courts have also “found a significant public interest
in releasing ill and aging detainees and have accordingly ordered
immediate release.”
Bent v. Barr, No. 19-CV-06123-DMR, 2020 WL
1812850, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2020) (citing cases).
Further,
the Court is only minimally concerned about flight risk in light
13
of the present circumstances and is persuaded that any lingering
concerns can be addressed through conditions of release.
See
Schriro Decl. ¶ 52 (opining that medically vulnerable individuals
“are unlikely to pose significant flight or public safety threats
if they were released under conditions consistent with objective
assessments of risk”); see also Doe v. Barr, No. 20-cv-02141-LB,
2020 WL 1820667, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2020) (noting that
“the global pandemic is changing behavior and the way courts assess
risk of flight and community safety”).
As to public safety, Durand Luyo has a considerable criminal
history.
See Greenbaum Decl. ¶ 7.
Most recently, he was arrested
for simple assault domestic violence and assault with a dangerous
weapon; this charge remains pending.
Suppl. Decl. ¶ 10.
See id. ¶ 12; Durand Luyo
Palacios Molina also has a criminal history.
See Greenbaum Decl. ¶¶ 17, 19-23.
Within the last year, he too
was arrested for domestic assault and battery, as well as assault
to rape.
See Greenbaum Decl. ¶¶ 22-23; Palacios Molina Suppl.
Decl. ¶¶ 14-17.
This arrest resulted in a restraining order
expiring in February of this year; only the domestic assault and
battery charge remains pending.
See Greenbaum Decl. ¶¶ 22-23;
Palacios Molina Suppl. Decl. ¶¶ 14-17. And while Respondents raise
concerns about public safety given these criminal histories, Gov’t
Opp’n 15-16, the Court’s conditions of release set forth in the
Order are designed to confront these concerns, especially with
14
respect to the recent allegations of domestic violence.
Other
courts have proceeded similarly in recognition of “the shifting
nature of these interests in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Bent, 2020 WL 1812850, at *7.
Petitioners submit that limiting spread of the infection —
both within Wyatt and outside it — is of utmost importance,
emphasizing again the difficulty of practicing proactive measures
in the facility.
Pet’rs’ Mem. 33-35.
The Court agrees that taking
efforts to contain the infection rate in turn limits the burden on
the healthcare system; “[g]iven that additional burdens on the
health system in this crisis may lead to a greater number of deaths
among the public, public health considerations cannot be ignored
in assessing an individual’s risk to the community.”
WL 1812850, at *7; Pet’rs’ Mem. 34.
Bent, 2020
On balance, the Court finds
these final requirements favor Petitioners.
D.
Release Plans
The Court incorporates herein the conditions it imposed in
its Order issued April 24, 2020.
E.
Bond
Having determined that Petitioners are entitled to relief,
the Court exercises its discretion to waive the bond requirement
embedded in Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
See Crowley v. Local No. 82, Furniture & Piano Moving, Furniture
15
Store Drivers, Helpers, Warehousemen, & Packers, 679 F.2d 978,
1001 (1st Cir. 1982), rev’d on other grounds, 467 U.S. 526 (1984).
The Court finds that a bond requirement would pose a hardship
on Petitioners, as individuals, in this suit against Respondents.
See
id.
at
1000
(directing
positions of the parties).
courts
to
consider
the
relative
The Court further finds that requiring
bond would unduly restrict the federal rights at issue.
See id.
The bond requirement is therefore waived.
II.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTED Petitioners’
Motion, ECF No. 10, except that the Court DENIED AS MOOT the Motion
as it related to Petitioner Adriano da Silva Medeiros.
ordered
Petitioners
to
follow
the
procedures
outlined in this Court’s April 24, 2020 Order.
waived the bond requirement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
William E. Smith
District Judge
Date: May 1, 2020
16
and
The Court
conditions
The Court also
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?