Petitioner was detained by ICE for purposes of deportation, but after a remand of immigration proceedings, he asked the court to reconsider his previously denied motion for immediate release. This petition alleged that his detention violated due process and put him at significant risk during the COVID-19 pandemic given his history of serious medical conditions, and it argued that the decision in Fraihat v. ICE (C.D. Cal.) was an intervening change in controlling law. The court again denied the petition, finding that the remand in immigration court did not constitute “newly discovered evidence” and did not mean that his deportation was "no longer reasonably foreseeable" under the Immigration and Nationality Act's requirement that detention be limited to "a presumptively reasonable period" of time. In addition, the court again ruled that safety measures in Seneca County Jail in response to the COVID-19 pandemic were sufficient to bar any claim of deliberate indifference toward Petitioner's health and constitutional rights.
Crowdsourced legal documents from around the country related to COVID-19 and incarceration, organized, collected, and summarized for public defenders, litigators, and other advocates. Created and managed by Bronx Defenders, Columbia Law School’s Center for Institutional and Social Change, UCLA Law COVID-19 Behind Bars Data Project, and Zealous. Mostly federal court opinions, but now expanding to states and legal filings, declarations, and exhibits.
This resource is designed to help lawyers, advocates, researchers, journalists, and others interested in challenging, remedying, or drawing attention to the grave risk that Covid-19 poses to individuals who are detained.