Yanes et al v. Martin et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
YANES, et. al, 	)
Plaintiffs 	)
)
V. 	) 	No. 1:20-cv-00216-MSM-PAS
)
MARTIN, et. al, 	)
Respondents 	)
ORDER
The petitioners, immigration detainees at the Wyatt Detention Center in
Central Falls, Rhode Island, filed on May 15, 2020, this putative class action habeas
petition, claiming that the conditions in which they are confined violate their Fifth
Amendment due process rights by subjecting them to substantial risk of severe injury
or death from infection with the COVID-19 disease. 	They seek declaratory and
injunctive relief and, in the interim, release or community confinement under
precautionary public health measures. (ECF No. 1.)
The most immediate issue now before the Court is the petitioners’ motion for
expedited individual bail hearings to address whether any, or all, of them should be
released pending the conclusion of this action. (ECF No. 15.) The petitioners contend
that they are held in conditions that promote, rather than protect them from,
infection 	by 	the 	highly 	contagious 	corona 	virus 	and 	that 	they 	are 	suffering
unconstitutional conditions of confinement.
Case 1:20-cv-00216-MSM-PAS Document 59 Filed 06/02/20 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
This action was brought as a class habeas,1 and class certification was
provisionally granted. (ECF No. 21.) In this Circuit, district courts have the inherent
power to release habeas petitioners on bail if they demonstrate a “substantial
question” of constitutional error and “exceptional circumstances.”
Glynn v. Donnelly,
470 F.2d 95, 98 (1st Cir. 1972) (quoting
Aronson v. May, 85 S.Ct. 3, 5, 13 L.Ed.2d 6
(1964);
Gomes v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Acting Secretary, Civil No. 20-cv-
453-LM, 2020 WL 2514541 (D.N.H. May 14, 2020)).2
	Accord, Mapp v. Reno, 241 F.3d
221, 226 (2nd Cir. 2001) (“substantial claims and [] extraordinary circumstances”)
.
That is true even for immigration detainees.
Id. at 27. 	In this case it is particularly
compelling to at least
consider bail because the remedy that the petition ultimately
seeks – protection from unnecessary exposure to the virus and unnecessary risk of
1 The government contends that habeas corpus relief is not available to challenge
conditions of confinement. 	(ECF No. 32 at 20.) 	A number of similar actions have
proceeded as petitions for habeas corpus in many different federal courts. 	The
government’s argument does not persuade this Court.
See, e.g., Savino v. Sousa, C.A.
No. 20-10617-WGY, 2020 WL 1703844 (D. Mass. Apr. 8, 2020) (class action habeas);
Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings, No. C.A. 20-02731-VC, 2020 WL 2059848 (N.D.Cal. Apr.
29, 2020) (class action habeas);
Coronel v. Decker, 20-cv-2472 (AJN), 2020 WL
1487274 	(S.D.N.Y. 	Mar. 	27, 	2020) 	(group 	of 	individual 	habeas 	petitioners);
McPherson v. Lamont, Civil No. 3:20cv534 (JBA), 2020 WL 2198279 (D. Conn. May
6, 2020) (class action habeas). The respondents do not appear to put forth a separate
argument that if a habeas action is appropriate, bail pending its resolution is
forbidden.
2
Glynn v. Donnelly addressed a far different context than these cases, holding that,
in the
absence of exceptional circumstances, a habeas petitioner
whose conviction and
sentence had been fully adjudicated, must show a “clear case” on both the law and
facts.
	Id. at 98. 	It cited with agreement, however, an opinion of Supreme Court
Associate Justice William Douglas noting that the standard for admission to bail
pending resolution of a habeas action of such a person must be “greater” than that for
someone 	who 	was 	challenging 	an 	incarceration 	“not 	resulting 	from 	a 	judicial
determination of guilt.”
Id. at 98.
Case 1:20-cv-00216-MSM-PAS Document 59 Filed 06/02/20 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
serious injury or death – would be illusory and, indeed, moot for any petitioner who
became sick and suffered major adverse effects or even death as a consequence of
confinement during the pendency of the action.
I. CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM
The issues presented by this case are at the confluence of two constitutional
doctrines applicable to civil detainees. 	First is the indisputable principle that the
government 	has 	the 	obligation 	to 	safeguard 	the 	physical 	security 	of 	those 	it
incarcerates, to protect them from known risks.
	Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
832, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1976-77 (1994). 	The authorities need not know of a precise
risk, or foretell precise harm, but they must act to forestall a substantial risk of harm
of which they are aware.
Calderon-Ortiz v. LaBoy-Alvarado, 300 F.3d 60, 65 (1st Cir.
2002). 	Second, while
Farmer addressed an Eighth Amendment basis for relief, the
Fifth Amendment’s due process clause provides protection as well. The due process
clause 	protects 	a 	pretrial 	detainee 	against 	“excessive 	force 	that 	amounts 	to
punishment.”
	Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473, 192
L.Ed.2d 416 (2015) 3 (quoting
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n.10, 109 S. Ct.
1865, 104 L.Ed.23 443 (1989)).
3
Kingsley appeared to do away, with respect to detainees, with the need to show the
subjective state of mind that is a hallmark of the “deliberate indifference” or “reckless
disregard” formulations.
Kingsley, 135 S. Ct. at 2472-73. While the First Circuit has
not ruled on this precise issue since
Kingsley, the
Kingsley standard of “objective
reasonableness” is the appropriate one to be applied to an action like this brought by
civil detainees such as the petitioners. That is consistent with the determination of
another judge in this district, ruling on a motion for release of specific ICE detainees.
Medeiros v. Martin, C.A. No. 20-178 WES, 2020 WL 2104897, at *4 (D.R.I. May 1,
Case 1:20-cv-00216-MSM-PAS Document 59 Filed 06/02/20 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
The petitioners here are held by the government for alleged violations of
immigration laws. 	As such, they are civil detainees who are “entitled to more
considerate treatment than a criminal detainee, whose conditions of confinement are
designed to punish.”
	Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 322, 102 S. Ct. 2452, 73
L.Ed.2d 28 (1982). They are entitled, as a matter of substantive due process, to “safe
conditions of confinement,” and the government has the obligation “to provide
reasonable safety for all residents and personnel within the institution.”
	Id. at 324
2020). 	In fact, the Court is perplexed by the government’s assertion in its filings in
this case that the appropriate standard of review is that of “deliberate indifference.”
In
Medeiros, the government apparently conceded that the more generous standard
of objectively unreasonable is the appropriate standard of review.
	Id. at *10. 	The
respondents have cited
Medeiros and that exact order with approval at various points
in its filing.
	See Gomes, 2020 WL 2514541 at *12 (
Kingsley standard likely applies
to civil detainees’ due process conditions of confinement claim).
The First Circuit has recently found the
Kingsley “objective unreasonableness”
standard appropriate for an arrestee’s Fourth Amendment excessive force claim,
while applying an Eighth Amendment “deliberate indifference” standard to medical
care.
	Miranda-Rivera v. Toledo-Davila, 813 F.3d 64, 71 (1st Cir. 2016).
	But see
Fraihat v. U.S. Immig’n & Customs Enforcement, Case No. EDCV 19-1546 JGB
(SHKx), 2020 WL 1932570 at *22 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2020) (applying “objective
unreasonableness” standard to due process claims by ICE detainees about dangerous
medical conditions).
In truth, a purely objective reasonableness test and one with a subjective
element of “deliberate indifference” are likely to lead to similar places. There can be
no real dispute that the respondents are and have been aware of the risks of the virus
and its horrifying infectiousness. ICE, the CDC, the White House, and all manner of
state and federal agencies have bombarded the public and institutions with warnings.
The respondents’ conduct at the facility, in taking some precautionary measures but
not others, has presumably been intentional. 	Both formulations look at what the
respondents knew, what they did, and what they should have done.
Case 1:20-cv-00216-MSM-PAS Document 59 Filed 06/02/20 Page 4 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
(civil commitment). 	“[C]ivil immigration detainees can establish a due process
violation by showing that a government official “‘knew, or should have known’ of a
condition that ‘posed an excessive risk to health,’ and failed to take appropriate
action.”
Sallaj v. U.S. Immig’n and Customs Enforcement, C.A. No. 20-167-JJM-LDA,
2020 WL 1975819, at *3 (D.R.I. Apr. 24, 2020) (quoting
Basank v. Decker, No. 20 CIV.
2518 (AT), 2020 WL 1481503, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2020)).
II. COVID-19 AND WYATT
It is clear from the evidence produced thus far, and the government’s own
submissions, that there is at the very least a clear question of substantial risk of
serious harm from contagion by the COVID-19 disease, under current conditions at
Wyatt. 	The dangers of the virus are well-known and, for many months now, have
occupied not only the front pages of newspapers across the country, but also the bulk
of the inside pages. 	Nightly newscasts bring daily reports of more disease, more
hospitalizations, more deaths. At this writing, the United States is approaching 1.8M
positive cases and has crossed the 102,000 mark in documented fatalities.4 	The
Wyatt facility is located in Rhode Island, where, on March 9, 2020, the Governor
declared 	a 	state 	of 	emergency.
	See 	Executive 	Order 	20-02, 	governor.ri.gov/
documents/orders/Executive-Order-20-02.pdf. 	On 	March 	11, 	the 	World 	Health
4 The CDC reported, as of May 31, 2020, total cases of 1,737,950 – of which 21,304
were new since the day before – and 102,785 deaths – of which 1,265 were new. That
number equates to nearly a death per minute. In the space of the 25 minutes it might
take to read this Order, nearly two dozen people nationwide are likely to die from the
virus. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html
Case 1:20-cv-00216-MSM-PAS Document 59 Filed 06/02/20 Page 5 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic. 	https://www.statnews.com/
2020/03/11/who-declares-the-coronavirus-outbreak-a-pandemic/. 	And, on March 13,
2020, a national emergency was declared. 	Pres. Proc. No. 9994, 85 FR 15337, 2020
WL 1272563 (Pres.). On March 28, 2020, the Governor issued a “Stay at Home” Order
requiring residents to stay at home except for work, medical treatments or obtaining
necessities. Executive Order 20-14 (also prohibiting gatherings of more than five (5)
people in any public or private space).
The 	Center 	for 	Disease 	Control, 	the 	government 	agency 	with 	the 	most
expertise and authority in the area of infectious disease, has warned that the virus
spreads from person-to-person primarily from close contact and that many of those
infected, and thus contagious, have no symptoms. “The virus that causes COVID-19
is spreading very easily and sustainably between people.” 	https://www.cdc.gov/
coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covid-spreads.html. 	The 	primary
means of protection are threefold: hand-washing and sanitization, staying at least 6’
away from all other people in what has come to be called “social distancing,” and
preventing the primary method of infection from airborne particles by wearing face
coverings when in close quarters with other people. 	Indeed, social distancing and
face coverings are not mere suggestions: 	they are mandated by gubernatorial
directive.
	See Executive Order 20-24, issued Apr. 14, 2020, Executive Order 20-30,
issued May 6, 2020.
The consequences on daily life of the spread of the virus, and the efforts to
prevent further spread, are familiar now to every American, from the elderly whose
Case 1:20-cv-00216-MSM-PAS Document 59 Filed 06/02/20 Page 6 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
rate of death in nursing homes is staggering5 to toddlers who have been forbidden
from attending daycare or climbing on the jungle gym in the local park. Restaurants,
businesses, entertainment, even public green spaces, became off-limits.6
“Congregate living, such as nursing homes, cruise ships, aircraft carriers, and
that at Wyatt and other detention facilities and prisons, magnifies the risk of
contracting COVID-19.”
	Medeiros v. Martin, 2020 WL 2104897, at *2 .
	See CDC
Megan Wallace et al, “COVID-19 in Correctional and Detention Facilities – United
States, February-April 2020 (“CDC Detention Report”) (May 15, 2020).
Wyatt, like many other facilities, has been endeavoring to modify its conditions
to meet the current threat. It has instituted a number of new procedures in response
to the health risk. 	However, even assuming the Respondents’ factual assertions
about conditions at Wyatt are true – and many have been disputed by the petitioners
– there remains a substantial risk of serious harm to the petitioners. The number of
cases at Wyatt, in spite of precautionary efforts that have been made, has been
5 Forbes has reported that a stunning 43% of deaths nationwide have occurred in
nursing 	homes. 	https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2020/05/26/nursing-
homes-assisted-living-facilities-0-6-of-the-u-s-population-43-of-u-s-covid-19-deaths/
#565fc8d374cd
6 At this writing, Rhode Island has gingerly moved to Stage 2, which reopened some
public 	areas 	and 	retail 	businesses 	with 	dramatic 	restrictions. 	Rhode 	Island
Governor’s Executive Order 20-40, issued May 29, 2020.
Case 1:20-cv-00216-MSM-PAS Document 59 Filed 06/02/20 Page 7 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
steadily increasing.7 	The number of detainees currently held there is 578 requiring
some inmates to occupy cells with at least one other – a situation that makes “social
distancing” impossible. 9 	Wyatt relies on double-celling and the 5’ x 9’ size of cells is
clearly too small to guarantee at least 6’ of separation between cellmates at all times.
The affidavit of Warden Martin asserts that 36 out of 44 detainees housed in J-2 Pod
are in single cells, and three others are in single disciplinary cells.10 (ECF No. 32-1
at 2.) Ten detainees in J-1 Pod are not single-celled; they are kept together because
they are a “cohort of detainees who must stay together for a prescribed period of time
until they can ‘clear’ through testing.”
	Id. 	Mealtimes are congregate, with “1-2
detainees at a 4-person table.” 	The government provides no information about the
7 Since April 20, 2020, by Order of the Chief Judge of this Court, Wyatt has been filing
semi-weekly status reports which, among other items, reveal the number of tests and
the results for ICE and criminal detainees. 	On April 20th, two tests had been
conducted, neither of which was positive. 	By the next day, a third detainee was
tested, resulting in a positive reading. 	As of May 26, 2020, when there were 523
detainees in total, 454 tests had been administered, resulting in 47 positive readings.
All 32 currently active cases in the institution affect non-ICE detainees.
	See In Re:
Donald W. Wyatt Detention Center, No. 1:20-mc-4, April 20 and May 26, 2020 Status
Reports (D.R.I.).
8
See In Re: Donald W. Wyatt Detention Center, No. 1:20-mc-4, May 26, 2020 Status
Report, at 1 (D.R.I. May 26, 2020)
9 The primary method of transmission of the virus is through airborne droplets which,
the CDC has widely publicized, can travel up to 6’ when expelled by a cough or sneeze.
Therefore, every governmental edict concerning gatherings outside residences has
included mandates to maintain a “social distance” of at least 6’ from other persons.
In addition, those edicts have required face coverings in most public environments
where social distancing cannot be guaranteed.
10 As the respondents note, two of the four named petitioners are now in single cells;
two, presumably, are not. Def.’s Response to Mot. for PI (ECF 36 at 2).
Case 1:20-cv-00216-MSM-PAS Document 59 Filed 06/02/20 Page 8 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
size of the table, but it is extremely unlikely to be 6’ x 6’, making social distancing
impossible during all meals.11 	Further, detainees are required to stand in line to
receive meals, a process which also makes social distancing impossible. 	And, of
course, inmates are eating, an activity that precludes them from remaining masked.
Exercise time in the yard is congregate; showers, except for quarantined detainees,
are congregate. Staff are mingled throughout the institution; there appears to be no
attempt to limit the number of different staff with whom detainees come into contact,
and staff clearly go in and out of the institution and mix to varying degrees with
family and the public.
The Court has inconsistent information with respect to the procedure for
accepting new detainees. 	The government represented to the Court that new
detainees were quarantined for 14 days upon entering the institution. 	The status
report indicates that period is 8 days, within which time the new detainee is tested
twice; if both tests are negative, he is moved to general population. 	The period of
contagion, however, is uniformly agreed to be 14 days, and, in addition, there is a
high rate of false negative tests.
While those over 65 have been singled out for special protection because of the
serious adverse effects of the disease, the
risk of infection knows no age boundaries.
The CDC reports as of May 28, 2020, that data from 1,392,310 people (a 99.8%
reporting rate) shows that only 11.7% of the cases occur in people over the age of 75
11 The petitioners allege the tables are less than 3’ wide, bolted to the floor, with seats
that cannot be moved. (ECF No. 1 at 4.)
Case 1:20-cv-00216-MSM-PAS Document 59 Filed 06/02/20 Page 9 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
(163,368 cases). Nearly 4% of the positive results were in children under the age of
18 (53,120 cases). 	And those in the age brackets of 18 – 44 and 45 – 64 constitute
39.5% 	(549,902 	cases) 	and 	34.3% 	(478,950 	cases) 	respectively 	of 	the 	infected
persons.12 	The
consequence of infection is thought to be especially severe for those
with 	“known 	vulnerabilities,” 	such 	as 	age, 	pre-existing 	respiratory 	or 	cardiac
conditions or disease, diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and other maladies.13 	Yet
there have been many deaths among persons who have no known pre-existing risks.14
In 	addition, 	the 	ICE 	immigrant 	population 	almost 	by 	definition 	includes
undocumented persons, a population that has historically received inconsistent
medical attention, so there may well be exacerbating physical conditions among
detainees that are simply undiagnosed.15
12 These numbers, last checked on May 31, 2020, at https://www.cdc.gov/corona
virus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html, are updated every day.
13 People at special risk are, at a minimum, those who are pregnant, immune
compromised, older adults, those with asthma, HIV, liver disease, chronic lung
disease, serious heart conditions, severe obesity, diabetes, and chronic kidney
disease. 	https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/groups-
at-higher-risk.html. 	Hypertension has also been implicated as an exacerbating
factor, whether alone or in conjunction with other conditions.
	Gomes, 2020 WL
2514541 at *16.
14 “A study from the CDC showed that even in patients between ages 19-64 with no
underlying health conditions, the total hospitalization rate was 8-8.7%. In a different
CDC study of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 26% had no high-risk factors – of that
subpopulation, 23% received ICU care and 5% died.
Gomes, 2020 WL 2514541 at *16
(citations omitted).
15 Wolbert, “Universal Healthcare and Access for Undocumented Immigrants,” 5
PJEPHL 61 (Winter 2011) (for a variety of reasons, including fear of authorities, use
of healthcare resources among undocumented immigrants is disproportionately low);
Gilcrist, “Undocumented Immigrants: 	Lack of Equal Protection and Its Impact on
Case 1:20-cv-00216-MSM-PAS Document 59 Filed 06/02/20 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
ICE has been under directives to identify all detainees falling into specific risk
categories for nearly two months. 	Peter Berg, the Assistant Director of Field
Operations of ICE, on April 4, 2020, listed risk factors and specifically directed Field
Office Directors to determine which of the detainees in their area of responsibility
met any of those criteria. 	Covid-19 Detained Docket Review 121-4, issued Apr. 4,
2020. Not long thereafter, a federal judge in the Central Division of California, in a
nationwide class action of high-risk detainees, ordered ICE to do the same.
	Fraihat
v. U.S. Immigr’n and Customs Enforcement, 2020 WL 1932570 at *20, certified a
nationwide class of ICE detainees held in detention facilities across the country who
have risk factors or disabilities placing them in a high-risk category.
	Id. at 16. 	On
April 20, 2020,
inter alia, the court directed ICE to identify those people.
Id. at 29.
It is clear from even a brief review of the medical records provided by the
government in response to this Court’s order that this has not been accomplished for
the detainees in this case. 	Most, if not all, detainees brought to the Wyatt facility
arrive there without any medical records. Records seem to begin at the date of intake
at the Wyatt detention facility. 	Most are reliant on an oral history given by the
detainee upon his arrival and a cursory medical examination. 	These facts alone,
when added to the failure to conduct a thorough medical evaluation – by a doctor and
with appropriate diagnostic testing – of each detainee means that the government
does not actually know which detainees have underlying medical conditions that put
Public Health,” 34 J. Leg. Med. 403 (Oct-Dec. 2013) (discussing lack of access to
healthcare of undocumented immigrants).
Case 1:20-cv-00216-MSM-PAS Document 59 Filed 06/02/20 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

12
them at extreme risk should they contract COVID-19.
Even more disturbing, the records that
do exist reveal a number of potentially
high-risk individuals who the Respondents have not identified in their filings as being
especially vulnerable. For example, a very cursory examination of just a handful of
medical records shows that the government records the height and weight of every
detainee but fails to calculate whether the Body Mass Index (BMI) denotes obesity, a
high-risk category. Several detainees report, and intake nurses note, things such as
a history of hypertension. 	Some include notes of medications these detainees are
taking but, again, these individuals have not been labeled “especially vulnerable.” At
least one detainee, also not identified, is an insulin-dependent diabetic.16
The Wyatt Detention Facility is in Central Falls, Rhode Island. Central Falls
has the highest per capita rate of Covid-19 infection in the state. As of May 31, 2020
Central Falls had 806 confirmed cases which translates to an infection rate of 3,980
per 100,000 residents; that rate is more than double the state average. 17 	The fact
that several months into this pandemic and with widespread infection in the
16 The filing of the respondents so contradicts this information as to make the Court
wonder if it read the filing correctly. 	The respondents first acknowledge that one
detainee is 69 years old. Beyond that, however, the
only discussion of heightened risk
factors among the detainees is the following:
The health histories of the detainees are also varied, with many
detainee records indicating no medical conditions that would place
them at higher risk for COVID-19, one (Petitioner _________) with a
record of asthma and several with mental health conditions.
(ECF No. 32, at 11.)
17 https://ri-department-of-health-covid-19-data-rihealth.hub.arcgis.com/
	See 	also;
https://www.cnn.com/interavtive/2020/health/coronavirus-us-maps-and-cases/
Case 1:20-cv-00216-MSM-PAS Document 59 Filed 06/02/20 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

13
detention facility and surrounding community, the government has not undertaken
any real effort to ascertain the underlying medical conditions of the detainees in this
case arguably could arguably to the level of conduct that is both deliberately
indifferent
and objectively unreasonable.
See, e.g., Fraihat, 2020 WL 1932570 at *24
(finding a month-long delay in determining who among the detainees was high-risk
to be objectively unreasonable). 	Indeed, the lack of that reliable and complete
identification has led here to hearings for all detainees, not simply a subgroup.
Thus, the conditions at Wyatt, combined with the fact that COVID-19 is
present in the institution, constitute emergency circumstances for every detainee
housed there. 	The Court also notes that the cases that the government cites, from
the District of Massachusetts, where the court did not grant bail hearings for each of
the detainees, reviewed markedly different conditions than those present in this case.
In
Grinis v. Spaulding, C.A. No. 20-10738, 2020 WL 2300313 (D.Ma. May 8, 2020)
(ECF No. 35, Exh. C), the plaintiffs were sentenced inmates required to show a
wanton disregard for their safety and an Eighth Amendment violation. The facility
in question in that case was a Federal Medical Facility that, presumably, had more
resources with which to address medical problems and, as of the issuing of the opinion
in that case, had only one prisoner positive for COVID-19. 	The other case,
Baez v.
Moniz, C.A. No. 20-0753-LTS, 2020 WL 2527865 (D.Ma. May 18, 2020) (ECF No. 35,
Exh. B) addressed only the issue of injunctive relief for the entire putative class amid
conditions at an institution that had not at that point had a single COVID-19 case.
Case 1:20-cv-00216-MSM-PAS Document 59 Filed 06/02/20 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

14
III. RELIEF
In order to prevail in their quest for bail hearings the petitioners must show
that they have presented a substantial claim of constitutional error, and exceptional
circumstances. 	That burden is carried by the conditions that Respondents concede
are present in the Wyatt detention facility. 	These conditions, in the aggregate,
combined with the fact that COVID-19 is present at the Wyatt Detention Center,
present a case for a substantial claim of constitutional error and present facts which
may 	lead 	the 	Court 	to 	conclude 	that 	their 	continued 	detention 	under 	these
circumstances presents a substantial risk of serious harm or death.
I therefore ORDER that the petitioners will be afforded individual bail
hearings, beginning Wednesday, June 3, 2020. As outlined in my Text Order of June
1, 2020, the following are directed:
(i) the petitioners will file, on a daily basis by 9 a.m., a list of at least ten
(10) detainees for whom they request bail hearings. In a separate filing under
seal, they are to indicate any health vulnerabilities. That filing may, but need
not, contain a written argument in support of release, and/or any specific
conditions of release, and may be accompanied by any relevant documents.
The Court, from those lists, will determine scheduling and hopes to conduct at
least five (5) hearings each weekday until the requests are exhausted.
(ii) by 3 p.m. each day, the respondents will file a statement of either
agreement or objection to the release of each person on that day’s list. 	They
Case 1:20-cv-00216-MSM-PAS Document 59 Filed 06/02/20 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

15
may, but need not, file a memorandum under seal discussing their position
and/or additional documents. The government may propose specific conditions
of release.
(iii) beyond the items specified in (i) and (ii) above, all further discussions
relevant to the detainees will take place orally at each hearing.
(iv) respondent Martin is ORDERED to assign Wyatt staff sufficient to
facilitate these hearings in the most efficient manner possible.
(v) at these hearings, the parties will address all relevant considerations,
including any special characteristics of the detainee relative to medical risks,
his criminal and immigration history, the danger if any to public safety
presented 	by 	the 	release 	of 	that 	particular 	detainee, 	and 	the 	specific
petitioner’s plan for release.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________________________
Mary S. McElroy
United States District Judge
June 2, 2020
Case 1:20-cv-00216-MSM-PAS Document 59 Filed 06/02/20 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>