CLOSED,HABEAS
U.S. District Court Western District of Louisiana (Alexandria) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM

Dada et al v. Witte et al

Date Filed: 04/14/2020

Assigned to: Judge Dee D Drell

Date Terminated: 08/14/2020

Referred to: Magistrate Judge Joseph H L Perez-Montes Jury Demand: None

Demand: $0

Nature of Suit: 463 Habeas Corpus -

Cause: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Alien Detainee

(federa

Jurisdiction: U.S. Government

Defendant

Plaintiff Tatalu Helen Dada

represented by William P Quigley Loyola University School of Law 7214 St Charles Ave New Orleans, LA 70118 504-7103074 Fax: 504-861-5440 Email: quigley77@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Scott Vogel National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild 2201 Wisconsin Ave NW Ste 200 Washington, DC 20007 504-569-5650 Fax: 617-227-5495 Email: matt@nipnlg.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sirine Shebaya National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild 2201 Wisconsin Ave NW Ste 200 Washington, DC 20007 202-656-4788 Fax: 617-227-5495 Email: sirine@nipnlg.org

Plaintiff Matilde Flores de Saavedra
Plaintiff Rosabel Carrera
Plaintiff Sonia Lemus Tejada Dejaso

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William P Quigley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Scott Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sirine Shebaya (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William P Quigley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Scott Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sirine Shebaya (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William P Quigley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Scott Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sirine Shebaya (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Griselda Del Bosque
Plaintiff Nadira Sampath Grant
Plaintiff Pardeep Kumar
Plaintiff

represented by William P Quigley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Scott Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sirine Shebaya (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William P Quigley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Scott Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sirine Shebaya (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William P Quigley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Scott Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sirine Shebaya (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Suresh Kumar
Plaintiff Hasan Saleh
Plaintiff Abraham Gebremedhin Gebremichael
Plaintiff Sirous Asgari

represented by William P Quigley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Scott Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sirine Shebaya (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William P Quigley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Scott Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sirine Shebaya (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William P Quigley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Scott Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sirine Shebaya (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William P Quigley (See above for address)

Plaintiff Eduardo Devora Espinosa
Plaintiff Rolando Alex Colon
Plaintiff Karthikeyan Ponnusamy

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Scott Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sirine Shebaya (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William P Quigley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Scott Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sirine Shebaya (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William P Quigley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Scott Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sirine Shebaya (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William P Quigley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Aracelio Rodriguez
Plaintiff Desmond Nkobenei
V. Defendant Dianne Witte Interim ICE New Orleans Field Office Director

Matthew Scott Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sirine Shebaya (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William P Quigley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Scott Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sirine Shebaya (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William P Quigley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Scott Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sirine Shebaya (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edwin Henry Byrd , IV U S Attorneys Office (SHV) 300 Fannin St Ste 3201 Shreveport, LA 71101-3068

Defendant Matthew T Albence Deputy Director and Senior Official Performing the Duties of ICE
Defendant Immigration & Customs Enforcement
Defendant Steven DeBellevue Warden of Richwood Correctional Center
Defendant David Cole Warden of LaSalle ICE Processing Center
Defendant Keith Deville Warden of Winn Correctional Center
Defendant Pat Book Warden of Catahoula Correctional Center
Defendant Tim Ducote Warden of Jackson Parish Correctional Center
Defendant

318-676-3600 Fax: 318-676-3641 Email: edwin.byrd@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edwin Henry Byrd , IV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edwin Henry Byrd , IV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edwin Henry Byrd , IV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edwin Henry Byrd , IV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edwin Henry Byrd , IV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edwin Henry Byrd , IV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edwin Henry Byrd , IV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric Staiger Warden of Pine Prairie ICE Processing Center

represented by Edwin Henry Byrd , IV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 04/14/2020

# Docket Text
1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee $5, receipt number ALAWDC-4234068) filed by Nadira Sampath Grant, Sirous Asgari, Rosabel Carrera, Pardeep Kumar, Hasan Saleh, Matilde Flores de Saavedra, Eduardo Devora Espinosa, Aracelio Rodriguez, Karthikeyan Ponnusamy, Suresh Kumar, Sonia Lemus Tejada Dejaso, Tatalu Helen Dada, Rolando Alex Colon, Abraham Gebremedhin Gebremichael, Desmond Nkobenei, Griselda del Bosque. (Attachments: # 1 Civil cover sheet)(Attorney William P Quigley added to party Rolando Alex Colon(pty:pet), Attorney William P Quigley added to party Sirous Asgari(pty:pet), Attorney William P Quigley added to party Rosabel Carrera(pty:pet), Attorney William P Quigley added to party Tatalu Helen Dada(pty:pet), Attorney William P Quigley added to party Eduardo Devora Espinosa(pty:pet), Attorney William P Quigley added to party Matilde Flores de Saavedra(pty:pet), Attorney William P Quigley added to party Abraham Gebremedhin Gebremichael(pty:pet), Attorney William P Quigley added to party Pardeep Kumar(pty:pet), Attorney William P Quigley added to party Suresh Kumar(pty:pet), Attorney William P Quigley added to party Desmond Nkobenei(pty:pet), Attorney William P Quigley added to party Karthikeyan Ponnusamy(pty:pet), Attorney William P Quigley added to party Aracelio Rodriguez(pty:pet), Attorney William P Quigley added to party Hasan Saleh(pty:pet), Attorney William P Quigley added to party Nadira Sampath Grant(pty:pet), Attorney William P Quigley added to party Sonia Lemus Tejada Dejaso(pty:pet), Attorney William P Quigley added to party Griselda del Bosque(pty:pet))(aty,Quigley, William) (Entered: 04/14/2020)
CASE Assigned to Judge Dee D Drell and Magistrate Judge Joseph H L Perez-Montes. (crt,Thigpen, M) (Entered: 04/14/2020)
2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Sirous Asgari, Rosabel Carrera, Rolando Alex Colon, Tatalu Helen Dada, Sonia Tejada Lemus Dejaso, Eduardo Devora Espinosa, Matilde Flores de Saavedra, Abraham Gebremedhin Gebremichael, Nadira Sampath Grant, Pardeep Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Desmond Nkobenei, Karthikeyan Ponnusamy, Aracelio Rodriguez, Hasan Saleh, Griselda del Bosque. Motion Ripe Deadline set for 4/14/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed order, # 2 Memorandum / Brief, # 3 Affidavit Vogel Declaration, # 4 Exhibit Alex Colon Declaration, # 5 Exhibit Asgari Declaration, # 6 Exhibit Carrera Declaration, # 7 Exhibit Dada Declaration, # 8 Exhibit Del Bosque Declaration, # 9 Exhibit Devora Espinosa Declaration, # 10 Exhibit Flores de Saavedra Declaration, # 11 Exhibit Gebremichael Declaration, # 12 Exhibit Pardeep Kumar

04/14/2020 04/14/2020 04/14/2020 04/17/2020
04/20/2020 04/20/2020 04/22/2020

Declaration, # 13 Exhibit Suresh Kumar Declaration, # 14 Exhibit Nkobenei Declaration, # 15 Exhibit Ponnusamy Declaration, # 16 Exhibit Rodriguez Declaration, # 17 Exhibit Saleh Declaration, # 18 Exhibit Sampath Grant Declaration, # 19 Exhibit Tejada Damaso Declaration, # 20 Exhibit Bazzano Declaration, # 21 Exhibit Meyer Declaration, # 22 Exhibit Axelrod Declaration, # 23 Exhibit Fernandez-Diaz Declaration, # 24 Exhibit Giardina Declaration, # 25 Exhibit Gutierrez Declaration, # 26 Exhibit Huber Declaration, # 27 Exhibit Lopez Declaration, # 28 Exhibit Nochomovitz Declaration, # 29 Exhibit Rivera Declaration, # 30 Exhibit Scott Declaration, # 31 Exhibit Trostle Declaration, # 32 Exhibit Villarreal Declaration, # 33 Exhibit Obser Declaration, # 34 Exhibit Chief Justice Ltr., # 35 Exhibit Recent Decisions)(aty,Quigley, William) (Entered: 04/14/2020)
Motions Transferred regarding 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order . Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Joseph H L Perez-Montes. (crt,Haik, K) (Entered: 04/14/2020)
3 SUMMONS ISSUED as to U S Attorney, U S Attorney General. (crt,Whidden, C) (Entered: 04/14/2020)
4 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Matthew T Albence, David Cole, Steven DeBellevue, Keith Deville, Tim Ducote, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Eric Staiger, Dianne Witte. (crt,Whidden, C) (Entered: 04/14/2020)
5 MOTION Set Briefing Schedule by Sirous Asgari, Rosabel Carrera, Rolando Alex Colon, Tatalu Helen Dada, Sonia Lemus Tejada Dejaso, Griselda Del Bosque, Eduardo Devora Espinosa, Matilde Flores de Saavedra, Abraham Gebremedhin Gebremichael, Nadira Sampath Grant, Pardeep Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Desmond Nkobenei, Karthikeyan Ponnusamy, Aracelio Rodriguez, Hasan Saleh. Motions referred to Joseph H L Perez-Montes. Motion Ripe Deadline set for 4/17/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed order)(aty,Vogel, Matthew) (Entered: 04/17/2020)
6 ORDER granting 5 Motion to Set Briefing Schedule. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes on 4/20/2020. (crt,Tice, Y) Modified on 4/23/2020 to reflect the correct motion granted. (Tice, Y). (Entered: 04/20/2020)
Respondents/Defendants brief due by 4/22/2020. Petitioners/Plaintiffs brief due by 4/23/2020. Oral Argument set for 4/24/2020 at 10:00 AM, by Video Teleconference, before Magistrate Judge Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes. Additional instructions to follow. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes on 4/20/2020. (crt,Tice, Y) (Entered: 04/20/2020)
7 ELECTRONIC MINUTE ENTRY: A video conference on the 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order is set for April 24, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Perez-Montes. All attendance at this hearing will be by video conference. A separate email will be sent to counsel of record

04/22/2020 04/23/2020
04/23/2020

in advance of the hearing. All counsel of record are responsible for sharing access information with represented parties, witnesses, or other persons associated with parties or witnesses that wish to attend, plaintiffs family members and making sure any witnesses are present. The public is welcome to participate via video conference and may send an email request to JPM_VTC@lawd.uscourts.gov to request access information. The access will be delivered via email to the email address from which the request originated. Those who are granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanction deemed necessary by the Court. The public is also reminded that silence must be observed by all audience members and any public outbursts will be met with immediate removal of video and audio feed Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph H L Perez-Montes on 4/22/2020. (crt,Roaix, G) (Entered: 04/22/2020)
8 RESPONSE to Motion re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Matthew T Albence, Pat Book, David Cole, Steven DeBellevue, Keith Deville, Tim Ducote, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Eric Staiger, Dianne Witte. (Attachments: # 1 Gvmt. Ex. A, # 2 Gvmt. Ex. B)(aty,Byrd, Edwin) (Entered: 04/22/2020)
9 REPLY to Response to Motion re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Sirous Asgari, Rosabel Carrera, Rolando Alex Colon, Tatalu Helen Dada, Sonia Lemus Tejada Dejaso, Griselda Del Bosque, Eduardo Devora Espinosa, Matilde Flores de Saavedra, Abraham Gebremedhin Gebremichael, Nadira Sampath Grant, Pardeep Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Desmond Nkobenei, Karthikeyan Ponnusamy, Aracelio Rodriguez, Hasan Saleh. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Vazquez Barrera v. Wolf, # 3 Exhibit Marlowe v. LeBlanc, # 4 Exhibit Fraihat v. U.S. ICE, # 5 Exhibit Supp. Decl. Nadira Sampath Grant, # 6 Exhibit Supp. Decl. Desmond Nkobenei, # 7 Exhibit Supp. Decl. Rolando Alex Colon, # 8 Exhibit Supp Decl. Rosabel Carrera, # 9 Exhibit Supp. Decl. Katrina Huber, # 10 Exhibit Supp Decl. Homero Lopez, # 11 Exhibit Decl. Susan E. Hassig, # 12 Exhibit Second Supp. Decl. Homer Venters, # 13 Exhibit Decl. Homer Venters)(aty,Vogel, Matthew) (Entered: 04/23/2020)
10 MOTION for Sirine Shebaya to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Admission fee: $105, receipt number ALAWDC-4244719) by Sirous Asgari, Rosabel Carrera, Rolando Alex Colon, Tatalu Helen Dada, Sonia Lemus Tejada Dejaso, Griselda Del Bosque, Eduardo Devora Espinosa, Matilde Flores de Saavedra, Abraham Gebremedhin Gebremichael, Nadira Sampath Grant, Pardeep Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Desmond Nkobenei, Karthikeyan Ponnusamy, Aracelio Rodriguez, Hasan Saleh. Motions referred to Joseph H L Perez-Montes. Motion Ripe Deadline set for 4/23/2020. (Attachments:

04/24/2020 04/24/2020
04/25/2020 04/26/2020 04/28/2020 04/29/2020

# 1 Proposed order, # 2 Certificate of good standing)(aty,Vogel, Matthew) (Entered: 04/23/2020)
11 MINUTES for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joseph H L Perez-Montes: taking under advisement 2 Motion for TRO; MOTION HEARING held on 4/24/2020 (Court Reporter: LCR, Alexandria-3rd Flr) (crt,Roaix, G) (Entered: 04/24/2020)
14 ORDER granting 10 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for appearance of Sirine Shebaya for Sirous Asgari,Sirine Shebaya for Rosabel Carrera,Sirine Shebaya for Rolando Alex Colon,Sirine Shebaya for Tatalu Helen Dada,Sirine Shebaya for Sonia Lemus Tejada Dejaso,Sirine Shebaya for Griselda Del Bosque,Sirine Shebaya for Eduardo Devora Espinosa,Sirine Shebaya for Matilde Flores de Saavedra,Sirine Shebaya for Abraham Gebremedhin Gebremichael,Sirine Shebaya for Nadira Sampath Grant,Sirine Shebaya for Pardeep Kumar,Sirine Shebaya for Suresh Kumar,Sirine Shebaya for Desmond Nkobenei,Sirine Shebaya for Karthikeyan Ponnusamy,Sirine Shebaya for Aracelio Rodriguez,Sirine Shebaya for Hasan Saleh. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph H L PerezMontes on 4/24/2020. (crt,Haik, K) (Entered: 04/27/2020)
12 NOTICE of Errata by Sirous Asgari, Rosabel Carrera, Rolando Alex Colon, Tatalu Helen Dada, Sonia Lemus Tejada Dejaso, Griselda Del Bosque, Eduardo Devora Espinosa, Matilde Flores de Saavedra, Abraham Gebremedhin Gebremichael, Nadira Sampath Grant, Pardeep Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Desmond Nkobenei, Karthikeyan Ponnusamy, Aracelio Rodriguez, Hasan Saleh re 9 Reply to Response to Motion,,, (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Dr. Susan E. Hassig CV)(aty,Vogel, Matthew) (Entered: 04/25/2020)
13 NOTICE of COVID-19 Medical Emergency by Sirous Asgari, Rosabel Carrera, Rolando Alex Colon, Tatalu Helen Dada, Sonia Lemus Tejada Dejaso, Griselda Del Bosque, Eduardo Devora Espinosa, Matilde Flores de Saavedra, Abraham Gebremedhin Gebremichael, Nadira Sampath Grant, Pardeep Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Desmond Nkobenei, Karthikeyan Ponnusamy, Aracelio Rodriguez, Hasan Saleh (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Decl. of Mohammad Asgari)(aty,Vogel, Matthew) (Entered: 04/26/2020)
15 NOTICE of Update Regarding COVID-19 Medical Emergency by Sirous Asgari, Rosabel Carrera, Rolando Alex Colon, Tatalu Helen Dada, Sonia Lemus Tejada Dejaso, Griselda Del Bosque, Eduardo Devora Espinosa, Matilde Flores de Saavedra, Abraham Gebremedhin Gebremichael, Nadira Sampath Grant, Pardeep Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Desmond Nkobenei, Karthikeyan Ponnusamy, Aracelio Rodriguez, Hasan Saleh (aty,Vogel, Matthew) (Entered: 04/28/2020)
16 NOTICE of Supplemental Evidence by Sirous Asgari, Rosabel Carrera, Rolando Alex Colon, Tatalu Helen Dada, Sonia Lemus Tejada Dejaso, Griselda Del Bosque, Eduardo Devora Espinosa, Matilde Flores de Saavedra, Abraham Gebremedhin Gebremichael, Nadira Sampath Grant,

04/30/2020 05/04/2020

Pardeep Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Desmond Nkobenei, Karthikeyan Ponnusamy, Aracelio Rodriguez, Hasan Saleh (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Richwood Article, # 3 Exhibit COVID-19 Modeling Study)(aty,Vogel, Matthew) (Entered: 04/29/2020)
17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Karthikeyan Ponnusamy, Abraham Gebremedhin Gebremichael, Eduardo Devora Espinosa, Sonia Lemus Tejada Dejaso, Griselda Del Bosque, Tatalu Helen Dada, Matilde Flores de Saavedra, Rosabel Carrera, Hasan Saleh, Sirous Asgari, Desmond Nkobenei, Nadira Sampath Grant, Rolando Alex Colon, Aracelio Rodriguez, Pardeep Kumar, Suresh Kumar - IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court GRANT IN PART Petitioners Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 2) in the form of a PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION requiring the IMMEDIATE RELEASE of the Petitioners identified above pending resolution of their immigration proceedings or removal, and under CONDITIONS to be specified by DHS/ICE but to exclude subsequent arrest and detention, unless an identified Petitioner violates another condition of release, attempts to abscond, or commits any criminal offense. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court decline to require any Petitioner released to post a bond or other security. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 2) be DENIED IN PART in all other respects, and as to all other Petitioners. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, given the urgency of the relief sought and recommended above, the objections periods set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) be EXPEDITED, and that any party wishing to object to this Report and Recommendation do so on or before Monday, May 4, 2020. The District Judge will consider timely objections before issuing a final ruling. A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed factual findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this Report and Recommendation shall bar that party from attacking either the factual findings or the legal conclusions accepted by the District Judge, except upon grounds of plain error. Objections to R&R due by 5/4/2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes on 4/30/2020. (crt,Tice, Y)(d) (Main Document 17 replaced on 4/30/2020 to make a correction on page 2) (Tice, Y). (Main Document 17 replaced on 5/1/2020 to reflect changes which Chambers requested) (Tice, Y). (Main Document 17 replaced on 5/4/2020 to correct errors) (Tice, Y). (Entered: 04/30/2020)
18 OBJECTION to 17 Report and Recommendations by Matthew T Albence, Pat Book, David Cole, Steven DeBellevue, Keith Deville, Tim Ducote, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Eric Staiger, Dianne Witte. Response to Objection to R&R due by 5/18/2020 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum / Brief, # 2 Gvmt. Ex. A)(aty,Byrd, Edwin) (Entered: 05/04/2020)

05/04/2020
05/05/2020
05/05/2020 05/07/2020 05/18/2020 05/18/2020 05/22/2020

19 OBJECTION to 17 Report and Recommendations by Sirous Asgari, Rosabel Carrera, Rolando Alex Colon, Tatalu Helen Dada, Sonia Lemus Tejada Dejaso, Griselda Del Bosque, Eduardo Devora Espinosa, Matilde Flores de Saavedra, Abraham Gebremedhin Gebremichael, Nadira Sampath Grant, Pardeep Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Desmond Nkobenei, Karthikeyan Ponnusamy, Aracelio Rodriguez, Hasan Saleh. Response to Objection to R&R due by 5/18/2020 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Suppl. Decl. Sirous Asgari, # 3 Exhibit Report)(aty,Vogel, Matthew) (Entered: 05/04/2020)
20 MOTION for Leave to File Response to Respondents' Objections with consent sought but not yet obtained by Sirous Asgari, Rosabel Carrera, Rolando Alex Colon, Tatalu Helen Dada, Sonia Lemus Tejada Dejaso, Griselda Del Bosque, Eduardo Devora Espinosa, Matilde Flores de Saavedra, Abraham Gebremedhin Gebremichael, Nadira Sampath Grant, Pardeep Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Desmond Nkobenei, Karthikeyan Ponnusamy, Aracelio Rodriguez, Hasan Saleh. Motions referred to Joseph H L Perez-Montes. Motion Ripe Deadline set for 5/5/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed order)(aty,Vogel, Matthew) (Entered: 05/05/2020)
Motions Transferred regarding 20 MOTION for Leave to File Response to Respondents' Objections with consent sought but not yet obtained . Motions referred to Judge Dee D Drell. (crt,Haik, K) (Entered: 05/07/2020)
21 ORDER mooting 20 Motion for Leave to Response to Respondents' Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Dee D Drell on 5/7/2020. (crt,Haik, K) (Entered: 05/07/2020)
22 RESPONSE TO OBJECTION to 17 Report and Recommendations by Matthew T Albence, Pat Book, David Cole, Steven DeBellevue, Keith Deville, Tim Ducote, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Eric Staiger, Dianne Witte. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Matthew Reaves)(aty,Byrd, Edwin) (Entered: 05/18/2020)
23 RESPONSE TO OBJECTION to 17 Report and Recommendations by Sirous Asgari, Rosabel Carrera, Rolando Alex Colon, Tatalu Helen Dada, Sonia Lemus Tejada Dejaso, Griselda Del Bosque, Eduardo Devora Espinosa, Matilde Flores de Saavedra, Abraham Gebremedhin Gebremichael, Nadira Sampath Grant, Pardeep Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Desmond Nkobenei, Karthikeyan Ponnusamy, Aracelio Rodriguez, Hasan Saleh. (aty,Vogel, Matthew) (Entered: 05/18/2020)
24 JUDGMENT adopting in part 17 Report and Recommendations, GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 2 Motion for TRO. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the effect of this order is stayed through May 26, 2020, and to the extent necessary, this order and judgment are determined to be final and appealable. Signed by Judge Dee D Drell on 5/22/2020. (crt,Roaix, G) Modified on 5/26/2020 (Roaix, G) to correct the wording of the ruling. (Entered: 05/22/2020)

06/08/2020 06/08/2020

25 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 24 Judgment re Report and Recommendations, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for TRO, by Matthew T Albence, Pat Book, David Cole, Steven DeBellevue, Keith Deville, Tim Ducote, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Eric Staiger, Dianne Witte. (Filed on behalf of USA - Filing Fee not required) (aty,Byrd, Edwin) (Entered: 06/08/2020)
NOTICE of Appeal Transcript Order Requirement regarding 25 Notice of Appeal. Pursuant to FRAP 10(b), the Appellant must file the transcript order form regardless of whether transcripts are necessary. Access the 5th Circuit site by clicking here. Hover over the Forms Fees & Guides tab, Forms, Court Reporter Forms, Transcript Order Form.

06/09/2020
06/09/2020 06/10/2020 06/19/2020
06/23/2020

In following the instructions on the form, please note manual notification to the court reporter and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is STILL REQUIRED. (crt,WalkerSld, B) (Entered: 06/08/2020)
26 MOTION to Withdraw 25 Notice of Appeal, by Matthew T Albence, Pat Book, David Cole, Steven DeBellevue, Keith Deville, Tim Ducote, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Eric Staiger, Dianne Witte. Motions referred to Joseph H L Perez-Montes. Motion Ripe Deadline set for 6/9/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed order)(aty,Byrd, Edwin) (Entered: 06/09/2020)
Motions Transferred regarding 26 MOTION to Withdraw 25 Notice of Appeal. Motions referred to Judge Dee D Drell. (crt,WalkerSld, B) (Entered: 06/09/2020)
27 ORDER granting 26 Motion to Dismiss 25 Notice of Appeal. Signed by Judge Dee D Drell on 6/10/2020. (crt,WalkerSld, B) (Entered: 06/10/2020)
28 SUBMISSION OF REPORT OF COMPLIANCE re 24 Judgment re Report and Recommendations by Matthew T Albence, Pat Book, David Cole, Steven DeBellevue, Keith Deville, Tim Ducote, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Eric Staiger, Dianne Witte. (Attachments: # 1 Gvmt. Ex. A.)(aty,Byrd, Edwin) Modified to more accurately identify the pleading on 6/22/2020 (Haik, K). (Entered: 06/19/2020)
29 Emergency MOTION for Immediate Release by Sirous Asgari, Rosabel Carrera, Rolando Alex Colon, Tatalu Helen Dada, Sonia Lemus Tejada Dejaso, Griselda Del Bosque, Eduardo Devora Espinosa, Matilde Flores de Saavedra, Abraham Gebremedhin Gebremichael, Nadira Sampath Grant, Pardeep Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Desmond Nkobenei, Karthikeyan Ponnusamy, Aracelio Rodriguez, Hasan Saleh. Motions referred to Joseph H L Perez-Montes. Motion Ripe Deadline set for 6/23/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed order)(aty,Vogel, Matthew) (Entered: 06/23/2020)

06/23/2020
06/23/2020 06/24/2020 06/24/2020
06/24/2020 06/26/2020 06/26/2020 07/01/2020 07/01/2020 07/06/2020

30 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the referral of Plaintiff Sampath Grant's "Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance and for Immediate Release" Doc 29 to Magistrate Judge Perez Montes is VACATED. The Government has until tomorrow, June 24, 2020, at 12:00 p.m. to respond to the motion (Compliance Deadline set for 6/24/2020). Signed by Judge Dee D Drell on 6/23/2020. (crt,Haik, K) (Entered: 06/23/2020)
Motions Transferred regarding 29 Emergency MOTION for Immediate Release. Motions referred to Judge Dee D Drell. (crt,Haik, K) (Entered: 06/23/2020)
31 RESPONSE to Motion re 29 Emergency MOTION for Immediate Release filed by Matthew T Albence, Pat Book, David Cole, Steven DeBellevue, Keith Deville, Tim Ducote, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Eric Staiger, Dianne Witte. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Declaration of R. Cruz)(aty,Byrd, Edwin) (Entered: 06/24/2020)
32 REPLY to Response to Motion re 29 Emergency MOTION for Immediate Release filed by Sirous Asgari, Rosabel Carrera, Rolando Alex Colon, Tatalu Helen Dada, Sonia Lemus Tejada Dejaso, Griselda Del Bosque, Eduardo Devora Espinosa, Matilde Flores de Saavedra, Abraham Gebremedhin Gebremichael, Nadira Sampath Grant, Pardeep Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Desmond Nkobenei, Karthikeyan Ponnusamy, Aracelio Rodriguez, Hasan Saleh. (aty,Vogel, Matthew) (Entered: 06/24/2020)
33 ORDER denying 29 Motion Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance and for Immediate Release. The motion may be renewed if Nadira Sampath Grant is not deported on 6/25/20. Signed by Judge Dee D Drell on 6/24/2020. (crt,Roaix, G) (Entered: 06/24/2020)
34 MOTION for Extend Ruling by Aracelio Rodriguez. Motions referred to Joseph H L Perez-Montes. Motion Ripe Deadline set for 6/26/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed order, # 2 Affidavit Decl. Jeremy Jong)(aty,Vogel, Matthew) Modified on 6/26/2020 to correct filers and to change motion event (Williams, L). (Entered: 06/26/2020)
Motions Transferred regarding 34 MOTION to Extend Ruling. Motions referred to Judge Dee D Drell. (crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 06/26/2020)
35 SUMMONS REISSUED as to Pat Book. (crt,Roaix, G) (Entered: 07/01/2020)
36 ORDER, Government Response due by 7/6/2020. Replies due by 7/8/2020as to 34 MOTION to Extend Ruling. Signed by Judge Dee D Drell on 7/1/2020. (crt,Roaix, G) (Entered: 07/01/2020)
37 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 34 MOTION to Extend Ruling filed by Matthew T Albence, Pat Book, David Cole, Steven DeBellevue, Keith Deville, Tim Ducote, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Eric Staiger, Dianne Witte. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Gvmt. Ex. A.)(aty,Byrd, Edwin) (Entered: 07/06/2020)

07/08/2020 07/09/2020 07/10/2020 07/15/2020 07/20/2020

38 DEFICIENT REPLY to Response to Motion re 34 MOTION to Extend Ruling filed by Sirous Asgari, Rosabel Carrera, Rolando Alex Colon, Tatalu Helen Dada, Sonia Lemus Tejada Dejaso, Griselda Del Bosque, Eduardo Devora Espinosa, Matilde Flores de Saavedra, Abraham Gebremedhin Gebremichael, Nadira Sampath Grant, Pardeep Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Desmond Nkobenei, Karthikeyan Ponnusamy, Aracelio Rodriguez, Hasan Saleh. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Supp. Rodriguez Decl., # 2 Affidavit Supp. Meyer Decl., # 3 Affidavit Decl. Jeremy Jong)(aty,Vogel, Matthew) Modified to add deficiency notation on 7/9/2020 (Haik, K). Modified to indicate corrected document filed as document 40 on 7/10/2020 (Thomas, T). (Entered: 07/08/2020)
39 NOTICE of Deficiency to Matthew Scott Vogel on behalf of Sirous Asgari, Rosabel Carrera, Rolando Alex Colon, Tatalu Helen Dada, Sonia Lemus Tejada Dejaso, Griselda Del Bosque, Eduardo Devora Espinosa, Matilde Flores de Saavedra, Abraham Gebremedhin Gebremichael, Nadira Sampath Grant, Pardeep Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Desmond Nkobenei, Karthikeyan Ponnusamy, Aracelio Rodriguez, Hasan Saleh regarding 38 Reply to Response to Motion. Reason: Replies to response to motion are limited to 7 pages for Judge Drell and Magistrate Judge Perez-Montes. (crt,Haik, K) (Entered: 07/09/2020)
40 CORRECTIVE DOCUMENT entitled Reply to Response to Motion to Extend Ruling filed by Sirous Asgari, Rosabel Carrera, Rolando Alex Colon, Tatalu Helen Dada, Sonia Lemus Tejada Dejaso, Griselda Del Bosque, Eduardo Devora Espinosa, Matilde Flores de Saavedra, Abraham Gebremedhin Gebremichael, Nadira Sampath Grant, Pardeep Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Desmond Nkobenei, Karthikeyan Ponnusamy, Aracelio Rodriguez, Hasan Saleh regarding 38 Reply to Response to Motion,, . (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Supp. Rodriguez Decl., # 2 Affidavit Supp. Meyer Decl., # 3 Affidavit Decl. Jeremy Jong)(aty,Vogel, Matthew) (Entered: 07/10/2020)
41 AFFIDAVIT of Service for summons and complaint served on U.S. Attorney, Respondents DeBellevue, Cole, Deville, Book, Ducote, Staiger on 7/6/2020, 7/8/2020, 7/9/2020, filed by Sirous Asgari, Rosabel Carrera, Rolando Alex Colon, Tatalu Helen Dada, Sonia Lemus Tejada Dejaso, Griselda Del Bosque, Eduardo Devora Espinosa, Matilde Flores de Saavedra, Abraham Gebremedhin Gebremichael, Nadira Sampath Grant, Pardeep Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Desmond Nkobenei, Karthikeyan Ponnusamy, Aracelio Rodriguez, Hasan Saleh. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(aty,Vogel, Matthew) (Entered: 07/15/2020)
42 AFFIDAVIT of Service for summons and complaint served on U.S. Attorney General on July 10, 2020, filed by Sirous Asgari, Rosabel Carrera, Rolando Alex Colon, Tatalu Helen Dada, Sonia Lemus Tejada Dejaso, Griselda Del Bosque, Eduardo Devora Espinosa, Matilde Flores de Saavedra, Abraham Gebremedhin Gebremichael, Nadira Sampath Grant,

07/23/2020
08/07/2020 08/14/2020

Pardeep Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Desmond Nkobenei, Karthikeyan Ponnusamy, Aracelio Rodriguez, Hasan Saleh. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit U.S. Atty. Gen. return receipt)(aty,Vogel, Matthew) (Entered: 07/20/2020)
43 AFFIDAVIT of Service for summons and complaint served on General Counsel, U.S. Dept of Homeland Security on Jul 9, 2020, filed by Sirous Asgari, Rosabel Carrera, Rolando Alex Colon, Tatalu Helen Dada, Sonia Lemus Tejada Dejaso, Griselda Del Bosque, Eduardo Devora Espinosa, Matilde Flores de Saavedra, Abraham Gebremedhin Gebremichael, Nadira Sampath Grant, Pardeep Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Desmond Nkobenei, Karthikeyan Ponnusamy, Aracelio Rodriguez, Hasan Saleh. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit DHS service documents)(aty,Vogel, Matthew) (Entered: 07/23/2020)
44 RULING AND ORDER denying 34 Motion to Extend Ruling. Signed by Judge Dee D Drell on 8/7/2020. (crt,Roaix, G) (Entered: 08/07/2020)
45 ORDER ORDERED that the suit is DISMISSED and the Clerk of Court shall close this case. Signed by Judge Dee D Drell on 8/14/2020. (crt,Roaix, G) (Entered: 08/14/2020)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:
Exempt flag:

02/25/2021 20:26:26

CRClearinghouse Client Code:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

14

Cost:

Not Exempt

Exempt reason:

Gillan 1:20-cv-00458DDD-JPM 1.40
Not Exempt

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 6 Filed 04/20/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 513

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

DADA, et al.,

Petitioners-Plaintiffs,

Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-458

v. WITTE, et al.,

Judge Dee D. Drell Magistrate Judge Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes

Respondents-Defendants.

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE Upon review of Petitioners-Plaintiffs’ Motion for Briefing Schedule regarding their Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 2), the Motion is GRANTED. It is hereby ORDERED that:  Respondents-Defendants’ Opposition brief is due Wednesday, April 22, 2020.  Petitioners-Plaintiffs’ Reply brief is due Thursday, April 23, 2020.  Oral argument on Petitioners-Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 2) is set for Friday, April 24, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. Additional instructions to follow.
SO ORDERED this 20th day of April, 2020.

______________________________ HON. JOSEPH H. L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 1 of 48 PageID #: 853

d UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

TATALU HELEN DADA,ET AL. Petitioners

CIVIL DOCKET NO. 1:20-CV-00458

VERSUS

JUDGE DRELL

DIANNE WITTE,ET AL. , Respondents

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Petitioners are civil immigration detainees. All await removal or other immigration proceedings. All attest that they are particularly vulnerable to the novel coronavirus, or “COVID-19.” And all seek immediate release from custody to until they are removed from the United States or their immigration proceedings are resolved. Respondents are the Department of Homeland Security/United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and various officials responsible for some aspect of Petitioners’ detention. Respondents oppose Petitioners’ release on jurisdictional and substantive grounds. Both sides advance legitimate positions. And together, they have established a substantial record. The Court must decide whether Petitioners are entitled to release given the risk factors associated with their detention, including their individual vulnerabilities to COVID-19. Petitioners may seek habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and injunctive relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 2 of 48 PageID #: 854
Amendment requires release if, given a particular situation, a Petitioner’s detention is no longer reasonably related to legitimate governmental purposes.
The relevant facts facing Petitioners, ICE, correctional officers, and the public, may also favor release. Under ordinary circumstances, ICE often releases civil detainees who do not pose a risk of flight or danger. Under these extraordinary circumstances, release is an even more viable option. Densely-populated facilities endanger those detained and working inside. That danger spills into surrounding communities. For these reasons, thousands of federal prisoners, state prisoners, and ICE detainees have already been conditionally released from detention facilities.1
In this case, 13 of the 16 Petitioners should also be conditionally released. One remaining Petitioner has tragically tested positive for COVID-19. Another has been released. And another has failed to establish a present right to release. All Petitioners’ immigration proceedings will proceed as normal, and any other detainee’s circumstances remain unchanged. But these Petitioners have established that their detention poses a grave and unconstitutional risk while failing to meaningfully serve ICE’s or the public’s interest. As such, injunctive relief is warranted under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
1 The United States Bureau of Prisons has released 1,805 prisoners to home confinement. COVID-19 Home Confinement Information, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/index.jsp (last visited Apr. 30, 2020). And the Chief Justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court has urged Louisiana judges to “minimize the number of people detained in jails where possible.” Letter to the Louisiana District Judges, Apr. 2, 2020, https://www.lasc.org/COVID19/2020-04-02LASC-ChiefLetterReCOVID-19andjailpopulation.pdf.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 3 of 48 PageID #: 855
I. Background A. Procedural Background Counsel for Petitioners originally filed this lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Dada v. Witte, No. CV 20-1093, 2020 WL 1674129 (E.D. La. Apr. 6, 2020). But Petitioners are all presently detained in this District. So the Eastern District dismissed the suit without prejudice under the “immediate custodian rule,” which requires Petitioners to seek relief in the district of their confinement. See id. at *3.
Petitioners then refiled before this Court, seeking the same relief, including a TRO. See ECF Nos. 1, 2. Shortly after filing, the undersigned set an expedited briefing schedule and an evidentiary hearing (hereinafter, the “Hearing”). ECF No. 6. The parties submitted briefs and numerous exhibits.
At the Hearing, counsel for both sides argued, but did not offer additional evidence or testimony. All counsel confirmed that the record before the Court was adequate, and that additional briefing and evidence were unnecessary. However, since the Hearing, counsel for Petitioners have submitted notices and supplemental evidence. Tragically, among these submissions was: (1) a Notice that one Petitioner recently tested positive for COVID-19 (ECF No. 15); and (2) a news article indicating that two guards at Richwood Correctional Center have died after exhibiting symptoms consistent with COVID-19 (ECF No. 16-2).
Petitioners’ Motion for TRO (ECF No. 2) remains pending before the Court and ripe for disposition.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 4 of 48 PageID #: 856
B. Factual Background 1. The COVID-19 pandemic threatens human life and vital institutions, particularly at detention centers.
At this juncture, there is likely no need to describe the COVID-19 pandemic in detail. As to its disruption of daily life, one court stated that “[t]he virus has . . . upended American economic and social life, causing schools and businesses to shutter, and even the nominally unaffected to wear masks and stand six feet apart in public." Adams & Boyle, P.C. v. Slatery, No. 20-5408, 2020 WL 1982210, at *2 (6th Cir. Apr. 24, 2020). As to its devastating toll upon human life, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), 1,005,147 cases and 57,505 deaths have been reported in the United States.2 In Louisiana, 28,001 cases and 1,862 deaths have been reported.3 And in the Louisiana parishes home to the detention facilities housing Petitioners: (1) Ouachita Parish – 706 cases, 16 deaths; (2) LaSalle Parish – 23 cases; (2) Winn Parish – 32 cases, 2 deaths; (4) Catahoula Parish – 36 cases, 2 deaths; (5) Jackson Parish – 34 cases, 2 deaths; and (6) Evangeline Parish – 49 cases, 1 death.4
Given those tragic realities, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has stated that “COVID-19 poses risks of harm to all Americans.” Valentine v. Collier, No. 20-20207, 2020 WL 1934431, at *5 (5th Cir. Apr. 22, 2020). At present,
2 Cases in the U.S., https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-inus.html (last visited Apr. 30, 2020). 3 Louisiana Coronavirus (COVID-19) Information, available at http://ldh.la.gov/coronavirus/ (last visited Apr. 30, 2020). 4 Id.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 5 of 48 PageID #: 857
COVID-19 remains medically “incurable” in the sense that “[t]here are no drugs or other therapeutics . . . approved by the . . . [(FDA)] to prevent or treat COVID-19.”5 COVID-19 appears to be highly infectious and transmissible, particularly where people are in close physical proximity with one another.6 “The best way to prevent illness is to avoid being exposed to this virus,” specifically by avoiding close contact with others, sanitizing, and wearing protective face covers.7
In large part due to these characteristics, COVID-19 has severely impacted detention facilities. This Court and many others have noted particular concern regarding the effect of COVID-19 in prisons. See, e.g., United States of America v. Vacarra Rogers, No. CR 3:15-00058-01, 2020 WL 1987350, at *2 (W.D. La. Apr. 27, 2020). The cause is apparent: “As warned by the CDC, conditions of confinement inherently prevent one’s ability to socially distance, which, until a treatment is discovered, or a vaccine developed, is the best measure to reduce the spread of the disease.” Sallaj v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf't ("ICE"), No. CV 20-167-JJMLDA, 2020 WL 1975819, at *3 (D.R.I. Apr. 24, 2020). Thus, “[t]he CDC has acknowledged the particular challenges faced by correctional and detention facilities in controlling the transmission of COVID-19 and has provided some guidance, as
5 CDC Information for Clinicians on Investigational Therapeutics for Patients with COVID1, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/therapeutic-options.html (last visited Apr. 29, 2020). 6 See How COVID-19 Spreads, available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/faq.html#Coronavirus-Disease-2019-Basics (last visited Apr. 29, 2020). 7 See How to Protect Yourself & Others, available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/prevent-getting-sick/prevention.html (last visited Apr. 29, 2020).
5

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 6 of 48 PageID #: 858
several courts have recognized.” See United States v. Morris, No. 3:19-CR-573-B, 2020 WL 1694301, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 6, 2020).
Moreover, “older adults [age 65 and older] and people of any age who have serious underlying medical conditions might be at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19.”8 Underlying medical conditions may include: (1) chronic lung disease; (2) moderate to severe asthma; (3) serious heart conditions; (4) immunocompromising conditions, including cancer treatment, smoking, bone marrow or organ transplantation, immune deficiencies, poorly controlled HIV or AIDS, and prolonged use of corticosteroids and other immune weakening medications; (5) severe obesity; (6) diabetes; (7) chronic kidney disease undergoing dialysis; and (8) liver disease.9
2. Petitioners seek relief specific and limited relief. Petitioners do not challenge their underlying immigration or removal proceedings. Petitioners also do not seek corrective relief for the specific conditions of their confinement. Instead, and in relevant part, Petitioners seek immediate release given their individual circumstances. II. Law and Analysis A. Jurisdiction
1. The Court need only address jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. "“Federal courts must resolve questions of jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits.” Ashford v. United States, 463 F. App'x 387, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2012).
8 People Who Are at Higher Risk for Severe Illness, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-at-higher-risk.html (last visited Apr. 29, 2020). 9 Id.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 7 of 48 PageID #: 859
Petitioners assert several potential bases of jurisdiction. Among them is habeas corpus jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), a district court may grant a writ of habeas corpus where an individual is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
2. The Court has jurisdiction under § 2241 because Petitioners challenge the “fact and duration” of their detention, not their “conditions of confinement.”
Respondents argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Petitioners’ claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This argument is based upon the distinction between “conditions of confinement” claims (“conditions claims”) and “fact or duration of confinement” claims (“fact claims”). The parties agree that a petitioner may, and should, assert fact claims under § 2241. See Poree v. Collins, 866 F.3d 235, 243 (5th Cir. 2017). But the parties dispute which type of claim Petitioners assert, and which “procedural vehicle” is appropriate for conditions claims. Because Petitioners assert fact claims, not conditions claims, the question regarding the correct procedural vehicle for conditions claims is not addressed. 10
Like the parties here, courts have long disagreed on these issues. But the United States Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit have provided meaningful guidance. In Muhammad v. Close, for instance, the Supreme Court upheld a state prisoner’s right to assert a damages claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 540 U.S. 749, 124
10 Many courts have approved ICE detainee conditions claims under § 2241. Respondents correctly point out that decisions in this circuit, while consistently skeptical, have not explicitly approved or prohibited § 2241 conditions claims. See, e.g., Poree, 866 F.3d at 243 (“While ‘fact or duration’ claims must be brought under habeas, the Supreme Court [and some other circuit courts] ha[ve] not foreclosed the use of habeas for other kinds of claims.”).
7

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 8 of 48 PageID #: 860
S. Ct. 1303, 158 L. Ed. 2d 32 (2004). The prisoner had been convicted of a disciplinary offense and claimed to have suffered damages while detained for that conviction. See id. However, the prisoner did not ultimately challenge his conviction; he sought only damages, not expungement or reversal. See id. at 754.
The Court emphasized the distinction at issue here: Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); requests for relief turning on circumstances of confinement may be presented in a § 1983 action. Id. at 750. The Court cited Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), a case which bars § 1983 actions that “would implicitly question the validity of conviction or duration of sentence.” Muhammad, 540 U.S. at 751. The Court then clarified that the Heck prohibition does not apply to “a prisoner's challenge that threatens no consequence for his conviction or the duration of his sentence,” in part because “there is no need to preserve the habeas exhaustion rule and no impediment under Heck in such a case.” Id. at 751-52. Though not directly on point, Muhammad is clearly instructive. Petitioners do not attack their underlying immigration proceedings. Like the prisoner in Muhammad, Petitioners seek relief that would not risk or affect the validity of their underlying immigration cases.
8

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 9 of 48 PageID #: 861
Still, Respondents argue that claims implicating “conditions” associated with a detention facility must be “conditions claims.” But the cases cited by Respondents reveal why it misses the mark, particularly here.
First, Respondents cite cases addressing conditions claims obviously centered upon the “conditions” themselves. To reconcile these cases, Respondents argue that Petitioners here attack the conditions of their confinement as well, including the physical space, sanitary conditions, and available medical care. But in the cited conditions cases and others, the conditions are the targeted harm. When fact claims are mentioned, however, conditions are indicators of the targeted harm: the confinement itself. See, e.g., Poree, 866 at 242 (holding that a challenge to a judge’s decision denying a prisoner’s transfer to a transitional home and ordering that the prisoner remain in a mental health facility was a fact claim properly asserted as a habeas claim); Schipke v. Van Buren, 239 F. App'x 85 (5th Cir. 2007) (“Schipke raised numerous claims pertaining to perceived injustices regarding her medical treatment and the conditions of her detention.”).
Second, the remedy for conditions claims is generally corrective. The remedy for fact claims, however, generally terminates the detention altogether, or alters it such that a new form of custody or control is imposed. See Poree, 866 F.3d at 244 (“"A request for relief from an initial civil confinement institution to a transitional home is similar [to a request for physical release]. Residence in a transitional home— a condition of Poree’s release from ELMHS—bridges the gap between his total confinement and total freedom.”); Schipke, 239 F. App'x at 85 (holding that “a
9

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 10 of 48 PageID #: 862
prisoner cannot avail herself of habeas corpus relief when seeking injunctive relief that, as in this case, is unrelated to the cause of her detention,” where a prisoner “sought an order for injunctive relief modifying the conditions of her detention”); Hernandez v. Garrison, 916 F.2d 291, 293 (5th Cir. 1990) (a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment and discrimination claims, seeking transfer to another facility due to “overcrowding, and denial of medical treatment and access to an adequate law library,” were “not a proper subject for a habeas corpus petition”); Sarres Mendoza v. Barr, No. CV H-18-3012, 2019 WL 1227494, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2019) (dismissing a detainee’s damages claims because “compensatory or monetary damages are not available in a habeas corpus proceeding,” but deciding the lawfulness of the detainee’s continued detention).
These cases and others illustrate that Respondents’ arguments must fall short. As a general premise, “the Supreme Court has clearly found jurisdiction under . . . § 2241 in [statutory and constitutional] challenges to post-final-order-of-removal detention.” Ali v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 4:20-CV-0140, 2020 WL 1666074, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 2, 2020) (citing Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 386–87 (2005);Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 688 (2001)). Adopting Respondents’ position here would contravene that general premise.
Returning to the distinction between conditions and fact claims, Respondents seem to use the mere mention of a “condition” as the line of demarcation. But the jurisprudence indicates that two different characteristics actually separate conditions claims from fact claims: (1) the nature of the claim; and (2) the remedy
10

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 11 of 48 PageID #: 863
requested. See, e.g., Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S. Ct. 1827, 1841, 36 L. Ed. 2d 439 (1973) (“[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.”).
As to the first characteristic, by nature, a fact claim challenges the detention itself. Conversely, by nature, a conditions claim attacks circumstances associated with the detention. As to the second characteristic, if a petitioner seeks immediate release or similar relief, the petitioner must do so through a fact claim. But if a petitioner seeks correction of a circumstance or event associated with detention, the petitioner must do so through a conditions claim. See Coleman v. Dretke, 409 F.3d 665, 669 (5th Cir. 2005) (“[I]t is well established that release from physical confinement in prison constitutes release from custody for habeas purposes, even though the state retains a level of control over the releasee.”).
These characteristics may be “blurry” in some situations. Poree 866 F.3d at 168. But the Fifth Circuit clearly endorses them: “Which statutory vehicle to use depends on the nature of the claim and the type of relief requested. . . . “‘[R]elease from physical confinement . . . constitutes release from custody for habeas purposes, even though the state retains a level of control over the releasee.’” Id. (quoting Coleman v. Dretke, 409 F.3d 665 (5th Cir. 2005), and collecting other Fifth Circuit cases); see also Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 820–21 (5th Cir. 1997) (“If a favorable determination . . . would not automatically entitle [the prisoner] to
11

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 12 of 48 PageID #: 864
accelerated release, . . . the proper vehicle is a § 1983 suit.”) (internal citation and quotations omitted). And if Petitioners can neither seek immediate release under § 1983 nor seek immediate release through habeas corpus, alternative remedies would be scarce, if available at all. Sacal-Micha v. Longoria, No. 1:20-CV-37, 2020 WL 1815691, at *8 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2020) (noting, but dismissing, the same concern, because the petitioner had “not demonstrated an absence of alternative remedies that would warrant recognizing his cause of action directly under the Fifth Amendment”).
Applying the first characteristic, Petitioner’s claims center upon the fact of their detention as the harm to be redressed. Petitioners reference “conditions” associated with their detention only to establish that the fact of detention is no longer “reasonably related to a legitimate government objective” – in other words, to establish that their detention is “punitive” under the circumstances, and therefore, unconstitutional. Applying the second characteristic, Petitioners seek relief available traditionally, if not only, through habeas corpus: release.
Critically, the “conditions” facing Petitioners likely would be implicated by either type of claim. But “[t]he mere fact that Plaintiffs' constitutional challenge requires discussion of conditions in immigration detention does not necessarily bar such a challenge in a habeas petition.” Vazquez Barrera v. Wolf, No. 4:20-CV-1241, 2020 WL 1904497, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2020).11
11 Respondents also argue that Petitioners’ claims are not related to the “cause of detention.” The Court disagrees. The Fifth Circuit has stated that the “sole function” of a habeas corpus petition “is to grant relief from unlawful imprisonment or custody.” Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933, 93536 (5th Cir. 1976). The “legality of custody,” or the “cause of detention,” is its only legitimate
12

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 13 of 48 PageID #: 865
Finally, Respondents suggest that some of the Petitioners’ detention is
mandatory. But mandatory detention statutes must, and often do, give way to the
dictates of the Constitution, including Petitioners’ rights under the Fifth
Amendment. See Malam v. Adducci, No. 20-10829, 2020 WL 1672662, at *13 (E.D.
Mich. Apr. 5, 2020), as amended (Apr. 6, 2020) (“Petitioner's continued detention is
in violation of the United States Constitution, to which 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) must give
way.”).12 “[T]he Supreme Court has consistently allowed for habeas challenges to
aim in habeas; “collateral administrative relief” or other unrelated matters are beyond its proper scope. Id. Petitioners argue that the “causes” that justified detention have now shifted. See Vazquez Barrera v. Wolf, No. 4:20-CV-1241, 2020 WL 1904497, at *6 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2020) The same logic separates the claims and mechanisms available to pretrial detainees and other civil detainees, and those available to convicted prisoners.
12 At the Hearing, Respondents argued that the United States had not waived its sovereign immunity regarding Petitioners’ claims. Respondents conceded that “§ 2241 waives sovereign immunity,” but does not concede to waiver of sovereign immunity for issuance of a TRO. Because Petitioners seek and are entitled to fact claim relief, the appropriate remedy for that relief is a petition for habeas corpus under § 2241. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973) (If a Plaintiff wishes to challenge “the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.”); see also Poree v. Collins, 866 F.3d 235, 243 (5th Cir. 2017) (“Typically, habeas is used to challenge the fact or duration of confinement, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is used to challenge conditions of confinement.”); Anekwu v. Immigration & Customs Enf't, 1:18-CV-1567-P, 2019 WL 2147931, at *1 (W.D. La. Feb. 14, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, 1:18-CV-1567-P, 2019 WL 2134538 (W.D. La. May 15, 2019).
In a factually similar case, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan found sovereign immunity did not apply in this context, and even if it did, that it had been waived. See Malam v. Adducci, 20-10829, 2020 WL 1672662, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 5, 2020), as amended (Apr. 6, 2020) (“Sovereign immunity does not apply in this instance, and even if it did, it has been statutorily waived. Federal courts may exercise the traditional powers of equity in cases within their jurisdiction to enjoin violations of constitutional rights by government officials.”). The undersigned agrees entirely with the Malam court’s reasoning.
13

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 14 of 48 PageID #: 866
detention statutorily mandated by the Immigration and Nationality Act.” See
Vazquez Barrera, 2020 WL 1904497, at *5; see also Basank v. Decker, No. 20 CIV.
2518 (AT), 2020 WL 1481503, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2020) (“[C]ourts have the
authority to order those detained in violation of their due process rights released,
notwithstanding § 1226(c).”).13
Each day, courts across the country are deciding similar cases arising from the
COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, consensus still eludes us. But so far, this Court
has identified the same distinction in a different context, and has not reached a
contrary result.14 Other courts – a growing majority, it seems – have arrived at the
13 At the Hearing, respondents also pointed out that Petitioners have different personal situations and are housed in different facilities. Petitioners have not sought class certification or formally requested permissive joinder, but instead simply filed the action together as Petitioners. Respondents have not filed a motion requesting that Petitioners’ claims be severed or separated into 16 lawsuits. As such, no issue regarding the presence of multiple Petitioners was brought to the Court for decision.
Nevertheless, the Court notes that joinder of Petitioners’ claims here is appropriate. The joint adjudication of habeas corpus claims is neither prohibited nor unprecedented, especially where interests of all litigants and judicial economy would be best served. Hatfield v. Young, No. 5:18-CV-01265, 2019 WL 4196613, at *6 (S.D.W. Va. June 7, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, No. 5:18-CV-01265, 2019 WL 4197117 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 3, 2019), aff'd, 790 F. App'x 547 (4th Cir. 2020) (“[W]hile the joinder of two or more petitioners in one petition is not a common practice in habeas corpus proceedings, joinder is permitted by Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 12 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases. . . . Furthermore, [i]n this case, permissive joinder may be preferable, given that the Petitioners wish to pursue relief together and a single action would aid the goal of judicial economy.”) (internal quotation omitted). And in the COVID-19 context, other courts are routinely granting relief to multiple detainees in different facilities. See, e.g., Thakker v. Doll, No. 1:20-CV-480, 2020 WL 1671563, at *9 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2020) (ordering that 13 inmates in three facilities be immediately released on their own recognizance).
14 See Riggs v. Louisiana, No. CV 3:20-0495, 2020 WL 1939168, at *1 (W.D. La. Apr. 22, 2020) (“Newton indeed challenges the general prison conditions, but he seeks an accelerated release from prison, which is properly asserted as a habeas action, not as a civil rights action.”); Livas, et al. v. Myers, et al., No. 2:20-CV-00422, 2020 WL 1939583, at *7 (W.D. La. Apr. 22,
14

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 15 of 48 PageID #: 867
same or similar results as the results reached here.15 And others have reached either
different or contrary results.16
2020) (“[Petitioners] bring this action [for immediate release] under § 2241, which is the proper vehicle for challenging ‘the fact or length of confinement.’”).
15 See, e.g., Vazquez Barrera, 2020 WL 1904497, at *8 (granting in part a motion for TRO as a preliminary injunction and ordering a detainee’s immediate release subject to appropriate conditions); Essien v. Barr, No. 20-CV-1034-WJM, 2020 WL 1974761, at *3 (D. Colo. Apr. 24, 2020) (“In theory, these causes of action are oil and water: a habeas claim may lead to an order releasing the prisoner or detainee or nothing at all; whereas a conditions-ofconfinement claimant may only lead to an order requiring the government to improve the conditions of confinement, but not an order releasing the prisoner or detainee.”); Martinez Franco v. Jennings, No. 20-CV-02474-CRB, 2020 WL 1976423, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2020) (“[I]t is “fairly well established” that a federal detainee can challenge the conditions of his confinement in an action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.”); Doe v. Barr, No. 20-CV-02141LB, 2020 WL 1820667, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2020) (“[T]he court can address the petitioner’s challenges to the conditions of confinement in a § 2241 petition.”); A.S.M. v. Donahue, No. 7:20-CV-62 (CDL), 2020 WL 1847158, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Apr. 10, 2020) (“The remedy for this type of claim, however, is modification of the conditions of confinement to eliminate the constitutional violation. Release from custody is not a remedy for this type of claim.”); Mays v. Dart, No. 20 C 2134, 2020 WL 1812381, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 9, 2020) (“The plaintiffs' claims, as they have framed them, do bear on the duration of their confinement (they contend, ultimately, that they cannot be held in the Jail consistent with the Constitution's requirements), and they are not the sort of claims that are, or can be, appropriately addressed via a claim for damages.”); Malam v. Adducci, No. 20-10829, 2020 WL 1672662, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 5, 2020), as amended (Apr. 6, 2020) (“Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit precedent support the conclusion that where a petitioner claims no set of conditions would be sufficient to protect her constitutional rights, her claim should be construed as challenging the fact, not conditions, of her confinement and is therefore cognizable in habeas.”); Coreas v. Bounds, No. CV TDC-20-0780, 2020 WL 1663133, at *7 (D. Md. Apr. 3, 2020) (“First, and most fundamentally, although the grounds on which they seek release relate to their conditions of confinement, Petitioners seek complete release from confinement, which is “the heart of habeas corpus.”).
16 See, e.g., Jose D. v. Barr, et al., No. CV 20-4031 (KM), 2020 WL 1969893, at *4 (D.N.J. Apr. 24, 2020) (“Here, Petitioner is directly challenging the decision to deny his request for parole, which this Court is not authorized to review. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s first claim for relief.”); Saillant v. Hoover, et al., No. 1:20-CV-00609, 2020 WL 1891854, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 16, 2020) (holding that immigration detainees stated a conditions claim, but finding the claim cognizable under § 2241 because the circumstances represented an “extreme case”); Sacal-Micha v. Longoria, No. 1:20-CV-37, 2020 WL 1815691, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2020) (finding a conditions of confinement claim where an elderly immigration detainee requested immediate release, but repeatedly complained that he was held in inadequate or unsafe “conditions”).
15

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 16 of 48 PageID #: 868
But the logic of the majority comports with Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent. ICE detainees who are at elevated risk of contracting COVID-19 in a detention facility, and who seek immediate release, may do so through “fact or duration” claims asserted under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
C. Injunctive Relief Petitioners seeking immediate injunctive relief in the form of release from custody. ECF No. 2. A TRO is a form of equitable injunctive relief that preserves the status quo until there is an opportunity to hold a full hearing on an application for a preliminary injunction. Atakapa Indian de Creole Nation v. Louisiana, CV 18-0190, 2019 WL 660558, at *1 (W.D. La. Jan. 11, 2019) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)). Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states, in pertinent part: (b)(1) Issuing Without Notice. The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give the notice and the reasons why it should not be required. Here, there has been a full hearing on the application for injunctive relief, and Respondents have been heard. “After an adverse party has been given notice, the court may properly convert a motion for a temporary restraining order into a request for a preliminary injunction.” Confident Care Home Health Servs., Inc. v. Azar, CV H-18-3604, 2019 WL 3318135, at *2 (S.D. Tex. July 24, 2019) (citing Esparza v. Board of Trustees, 182 F.3d 915 (5th Cir. 1999) (“But when the adverse party has notice, the
16

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 17 of 48 PageID #: 869
protective provisions of rule 65(b) do not control, and the court has discretion to consider granting more lasting relief under a [preliminary injunction].”)).
For a preliminary injunction, a Petitioner must show: (1) a substantial likelihood that he will prevail on the merits, (2) a substantial threat that he will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, (3) that his threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm to the party whom he seeks to enjoin, and (4) that granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest. Bhatia v. Warden, 1:16-CV-1125, 2017 WL 1026054, at *1 (W.D. La. Jan. 24, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, 1:16-CV-1125;, 2017 WL 1017634 (W.D. La. Mar. 15, 2017) (citing Planned Parenthood of Houston & Southeast Texas v. Sanchez, 403 F.3d 324, 329 (5th Cir. 2005)).
A preliminary injunction “is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, not to be granted routinely, but only when the movant, by a clear showing, carries a burden of persuasion.” Black Fire Fighters Ass’n of Dallas v. City of Dallas, Tex., 905 F.2d 63, 65 (5th Cir. 1990). “The denial of a preliminary injunction will be upheld where the movant has failed sufficiently to establish any one of the four criteria.” Black Fire Fighters Ass’n, 905 F.2d at 65; see also Flores, 442 F. App’x at 165.
1. Petitioners may be substantially likely to prevail on the merits. Petitioners are civil detainees. As a result, Petitioners’ detention must remain “nonpunitive in purpose and effect.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690, 121 S. Ct. 2491, 2499, 150 L. Ed. 2d 653 (2001). Prior criminal convictions do not affect this
17

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 18 of 48 PageID #: 870
legal status. See, e.g., Castillo v. Barr, No. CV2000605TJHAFMX, 2020 WL 1502864, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2020) ) (citing Zadvydas, 533 U.S.C. at 690).
Civil immigration detainees are specifically entitled to the protections of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Its Due Process Clause, in relevant part, forbids the government to “depriv[e]” any “person . . . of . . . liberty . . . without due process of law.” Civil detention thus implicates the Due Process Clause: “Freedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that Clause protects.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690. “[T]he Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” See id. at 693.
The Supreme Court has long held that civil detention must be justified: “[G]overnment detention violates that Clause unless the detention is ordered in a criminal proceeding with adequate procedural protections, or, in certain special and ‘narrow’ nonpunitive ‘circumstances,’ where a special justification, such as harmthreatening mental illness, outweighs the individual's constitutionally protected interest in avoiding physical restraint.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Civil detention becomes unconstitutional when “punitive” in nature, meaning “not [or no longer] reasonably related to a legitimate, nonpunitive governmental objective.” Scott v. Moore, 114 F.3d 51, 53 (5th Cir. 1997).
Thus, it is well settled that a civil immigration detainee is “the equivalent of a pretrial detainee,” whose “constitutional claims are considered under the due process
18

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 19 of 48 PageID #: 871
clause instead of the Eighth Amendment.” See Edwards v. Johnson, 209 F.3d 772, 778 (5th Cir. 2000). However, the parties dispute the standard for Petitioners’ claims. Respondents argue that Petitioners must prove ICE officials acted with “subjective deliberate indifference.” Petitioners claim that they may prevail by proving that detention is not “reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective,” and therefore “punitive.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 539, 99 S. Ct. 1861, 1874, 60 L. Ed. 2d 447 (1979). Petitioners also argue, in the alternative, that they have established “subjective deliberate indifference” in ICE’s response to COVID-19.
Here, yet another two-part distinction must be considered. And to compound the difficulty, on one side of the distinction are challenges to “general conditions of confinement.” The term has different meaning here. On the other side of the distinction are challenges to a “particular act or omission.”
The former category of claims is concerned with "constitutional challenges to conditions, practices, rules, or restrictions.” See Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss., 74 F.3d 633, 644 (5th Cir. 1996). These challenges are subject to the “reasonable relationship” test outlined by the Supreme Court in Wolfish, and restated above. See Scott v. Moore, 114 F.3d 51, 53 (5th Cir. 1997). The latter category concerns “episodic acts or omissions” committed by specific officials. Hare, 74 F.3d at 644. These challenges require a finding of deliberate indifference. See Scott, 114 F.3d at 53.
The Fifth Circuit has described this distinction as well, and in so doing, has clarified that the distinction is separate from “conditions claims” discussed in the habeas corpus context:
19

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 20 of 48 PageID #: 872
[A] condition may take the form of “a rule,” a “restriction,” “an identifiable intended condition or practice,” or “acts or omissions” by a jail official that are “sufficiently extended or pervasive.” Estate of Henson v. Wichita Cty. Tex., 795 F.3d 456, 468 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Duvall v. Dallas Cty., 631 F.3d 203, 207 (5th Cir. 2011)). “In some cases, a condition may reflect an unstated or de facto policy, as evidenced by a pattern of acts or omissions ‘sufficiently extended or pervasive, or otherwise typical of extended or pervasive misconduct by [jail] officials, to prove an intended condition or practice.’” Shepherd v. Dallas Cty., 591 F.3d 445, 452 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Hare, 74 F.3d at 645). But “isolated examples of illness, injury, or even death, standing alone, cannot prove that conditions of confinement are constitutionally inadequate.” Id. at 454. To prevail on a claim of unconstitutional conditions of confinement, a plaintiff must show: “(1) ‘a rule or restriction or ... the existence of an identifiable intended condition or practice ... [or] that the jail official’s acts or omissions were sufficiently extended or pervasive’; (2) which was not reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective; and (3) which caused the violation of [the inmate’s] constitutional rights.” Duvall, 631 F.3d at 207 (quoting Hare, 74 F.3d at 645).
Cadena v. El Paso Cty., 946 F.3d 717, 727 (5th Cir. 2020); see also Shepherd v. Dallas
Cty., 591 F.3d 445, 452 (5th Cir. 2009) (a petitioner challenging general conditions
“is relieved from the burden of demonstrating a municipal entity's or individual jail
official's actual intent to punish”); contra. Sacal-Micha, 2020 WL 1815691, at *6 (S.D.
Tex. Apr. 9, 2020) ("Sacal [an immigration detainee] does not allege that the
conditions under which he is being held amount to punishment.”).
In this case, Petitioners’ claims challenge extended, pervasive circumstances
that they claim are – by act, omission, or plain necessity – prevalent in ICE detention
facilities, including the facilities housing them. Petitioners’ are more similar to, for
instance, a challenge to the “number of bunks in a cell or . . . television or mail
privileges.” See Scott, 114 F.3d at 53. Therefore, Petitioners’ claims are subject to
the reasonable relationship test, not the deliberate indifference standard. See id.; see
20

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 21 of 48 PageID #: 873
also Vazquez Barrera, 2020 WL 1904497, at *5 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2020) (applying theWolfish reasonable relationship standard to ICE detainees’ request for immediate release in light of the COVID-19 pandemic); contra Coronel, 2020 WL 1487274, at *10 (applying the deliberate indifference standard to immigration detainees’ substantive due process claims, but ordering detainees’ release).
Under this standard, Petitioners may succeed on their substantive due process claims by establishing that detention does not reasonable relate to a legitimate governmental purpose. They may make this showing, for example, by proving that, due to their age, immune deficiencies, or other comorbidities, they face an elevated risk of contracting the virus, or suffering serious illness from it; that their particular circumstances also heighten these risks; and that preventive measures are difficult or impossible, leaving them unduly exposed to contracting the virus. See Vazquez Barrera, 2020 WL 1904497, at *5 (“Here, the Court finds that detention of Plaintiffs, who are at high risk of serious illness or death if they contract COVID-19, in MPC, where social distancing and proper hygiene are impossible, does not reasonably relate to a legitimate governmental purpose.”).
Importantly, Petitioners’ claims must be distinct in some respect. See Martinez Franco v. Jennings, No. 20-CV-02474-CRB, 2020 WL 1976423, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2020) (“Franco does not identify, and the Court has not seen, a case finding that increased likelihood of contracting the virus rendered unconstitutional the detention of a person without underlying medical conditions or some other vulnerability.”). The Fifth Circuit has explained that “[t]he incidence of diseases or
21

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 22 of 48 PageID #: 874
infections, standing alone,’ do not ‘imply unconstitutional confinement conditions, since any densely populated residence may be subject to outbreaks.’” Valentine v. Collier, No. 20-20207, 2020 WL 1934431, at *3 (5th Cir. Apr. 22, 2020) (quoting Shepherd v. Dallas Cty., 591 F.3d 445, 454 (5th Cir. 2009)). This Court has already concluded the same: “[P]risoners are not entitled to release or transfer based solely on generalized COVID-19 fears and speculation.” Riggs v. Louisiana, No. CV 3:200495, 2020 WL 1939168, at *2 (W.D. La. Apr. 22, 2020).17 Otherwise, the claims of any prisoner or detainee would be equally meritorious – or equally meritless – notwithstanding their individual situations. That result would be untenable.
To separate meritorious claims from generalized risk, some courts have focused upon underlying detainees’ medical conditions, detainees’ criminal histories or tendency toward violance, and the detention facility’s response to the pandemic. See Vazquez Barrera, 2020 WL 1904497, at *6. Another court distilled a “nonexhaustive list of factors” to be considered. Saillant, 2020 WL 1891854, at *4. The best solution in this case may be to reconcile and supplement those salient approaches. In addressing the merits of Petitioners’ requests for habeas relief, the undersigned thus considers the following non-exhaustive list of factors:
(1) whether the petitioner has been diagnosed with COVID-19 or is experiencing symptoms consistent with the disease;
17 And so have many others. See, e.g., United States v. Clark, No. CR 17-85-SDD-RLB, 2020 WL 1557397, at *4 (M.D. La. Apr. 1, 2020) (“Defendant cites no authority for the proposition that the fear of contracting a communicable disease warrants a sentence modification.”); Saillant v. Hoover, et al., No. 1:20-CV-00609, 2020 WL 1891854, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 16, 2020) (denying habeas relief in part because the petitioner sought habeas corpus relief merely because he was “detained and subjected to a generalized risk of contracting COVID-19”).
22

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 23 of 48 PageID #: 875
(2) whether the petitioner is among the group of individuals that is at higher risk of contracting COVID-19 as identified by the CDC, due to the petitioner’s age or an underlying health condition;
(3) whether the petitioner has been, or has likely been, directly exposed to COVID-19;
(4) the physical space in which the petitioner is detained, and how that physical space affects his risk of contracting COVID-19;
(5) the efforts that detention facility officials have made to prevent or mitigate the spread of, or harm caused by, COVID-19;
(6) any danger to the community, or to the petitioner’s immigration proceedings, that may be posed by the petitioner’s release; and
(7) any other relevant factors.
See Saillant, 2020 WL 1891854, at *4; Vazquez Barrera, 2020 WL 1904497, at *6.
2. Petitioners may face irreparable harm if not released.
In order to satisfy the “irreparable harm” requirement, Petitioners must
establish that “irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.” Winter v.
Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22, 129 S. Ct. 365, 375, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249
(2008). But a court “need not await a tragic event” to afford injunctive relief. Helling
v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33, 113 S. Ct. 2475, 2481, 125 L. Ed. 2d 22 (1993). Instead,
the following familiar principles would apply:
Perhaps the single most important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary injunction is a demonstration that if it is not granted the applicant is likely to suffer irreparable harm before a decision on the merits can be rendered.” 11A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948.1 (3d ed. 2013) [hereinafter Wright & Miller]. The focus of this inquiry is not so much the magnitude but the irreparability of the threatened harm. See Callaway, 489 F.2d at 575. The Fifth Circuit has defined irreparable harm to mean “harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law,” such as monetary damages. Daniels Health Scis., L.L.C. v. Vascular
23

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 24 of 48 PageID #: 876
Health Scis., L.L.C., 710 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir.2013); accord Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585, 600 (5th Cir.2011).
Plaintiffs must show that “irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). “[A] preliminary injunction will not be issued simply to prevent the possibility of some remote future injury.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Wright & Miller, supra, § 2948.1); Morrell v. City of Shreveport, 536 Fed.Appx. 433, 435 (5th Cir.2013). There must be more than “an unfounded fear on the part of the applicant.” Holland Am. Ins. Co. v. Succession of Roy, 777 F.2d 992, 997 (5th Cir.1985). Accordingly, the party seeking a preliminary injunction must show that the threatened harm is “more than mere speculation.” Janvey, 647 F.3d at 601; see also Connecticut v. Massachusetts, 282 U.S. 660, 674, 51 S.Ct. 286, 75 L.Ed. 602 (1931) (“[An injunction] will not be granted against something merely feared as liable to occur at some indefinite time in the future.”); Wis. Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C.Cir.1985) (“[T]he injury must be both certain and great; it must be actual and not theoretical.”). Therefore, “[a] presently existing actual threat must be shown.” Morrell, 536 Fed.Appx. at 435 (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 262 (5th Cir.2001)).
Monumental Task Comm., Inc. v. Foxx, 157 F. Supp. 3d 573, 582–83 (E.D. La. 2016),
aff'd sub nom. Monumental Task Comm., Inc. v. Chao, 678 F. App'x 250 (5th Cir.
2017).
Here, a Petitioner could establish irreparable harm in two ways. First, “[t]he
alleged violation of a constitutional right is sufficient for a court to find irreparable
harm.” Malam, 2020 WL 1672662, at *10. Second, a Petitioner may prove that
detention constitutes a significant and heightened risk that they will contract
COVID-19. See Coreas v. Bounds, No. CV TDC-20-0780, 2020 WL 1663133, at *13
(D. Md. Apr. 3, 2020) (“Petitioners have introduced uncontroverted evidence that
contracting COVID-19 would put them at serious risk of severe medical complications
and even death.”). It is difficult to dispute that an elevated risk of contracting
24

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 25 of 48 PageID #: 877
COVID-19 poses a threat of irreparable harm. See, e.g., Thakker, et al. v. Doll, et al.,
No. 1:20-CV-480, 2020 WL 1671563, at *7 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2020) (collecting data
and cases). A colleague court described the general implications upon immigration
detainees with comorbidities as follows:
The COVID-19 pandemic has reached every state in our nation, and the numbers of infected and dead increase daily. According to the CDC, those with particular medical vulnerabilities, including Plaintiffs, are particularly susceptible to serious illness and death. There is currently no vaccine or cure for COVID-19. Medical experts have also concluded that continued detention in ICE facilities during the current pandemic presents an “imminent risk to the health and safety of immigrant detainees.” Letter from Scott A. Allen, MD, FACP & Josiah Rich, MD, MPH to Committee Chairpersons and Ranking Members of House and Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Committee on Oversight and Reform 3 (Mar. 19, 2020), https://whistleblower.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/03/Drs.-Allen-and-Rich-3.20.2020-Letter-toCongress.pdf.
Vazquez Barrera, 2020 WL 1904497, at *6; see also Basank v. Decker, No. 20 CIV.
2518 (AT), 2020 WL 1481503, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2020) (“Courts have also
recognized this health risk to be particularly acute—and of constitutional
significance—for inmates who are elderly or have underlying illnesses.”).
Unfortunately, Petitioners already have powerful evidence that the threat to
them could be immediate: one of their number has already contracted COVID-19
during the course of this proceeding.
3. Petitioner’s likely injuries may outweigh any legitimate government interest or injury.
The potential injuries facing Petitioners are of the gravest kind. Those who
contract COVID-19 often suffer physically and mentally. That is especially true of
the elderly or the sick. They endure severe and protracted illness, discomfort, and
25

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 26 of 48 PageID #: 878
pain. They may suffer permanent injuries or disabilities. They may die. Again, one
Petitioner is already facing these prospects. And to the extent they can prove
particularized risk, the remaining Petitioners could as well.
Respondents have legitimate countervailing interests: to protect the public and
to ensure that Petitioners appear for future immigration proceedings or removal. See
Vazquez Barrera, 2020 WL 1904497, at *7; Engelund v. Doll, No. 4:20-CV-00604,
2020 WL 1974389, at *9 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 24, 2020. The Court acknowledges and values
those interests. But their weight ilimited in several respects:
[D]etention is not necessary to further Defendants' interest in preventing [detainees] from absconding. Rather, ICE has a number of alternative tools available to it to ensure enforcement, which it is free to use with [detainees] if they are released from detention. For example, ICE's conditional supervision program uses a combination of electronic ankle monitors, biometric voice recognition software, unannounced home visits, employer verification, and in-person reporting requirements to supervise individuals released from detention. (Doc. No. 12-1, at 27). An initial study of ICE's alternatives to detention reported a 99% attendance rate at all immigration court hearings and a 95% attendance rate at final hearings among supervised individuals. U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-15-26, Alternatives to Detention: Improved Data Collection and Analyses Needed to Better Assess Program Effectiveness 30 (2014).
Vazquez Barrera, 2020 WL 1904497, at *7.
To the contrary, a Petitioner’s extended detention may actually place added
strain on the already overburdened medical system, or delay, if not derail,
immigration proceedings or deportation. Ali v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 4:20-CV-
0140, 2020 WL 1666074, at *5 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 2, 2020) (“If Petitioner endured
significant exposure to those affected by the virus, that alone could further delay
Petitioner’s ultimate deportation.”).
26

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 27 of 48 PageID #: 879
4. Petitioner’s release may not disserve the public interest. Courts have referenced a detainee’s criminal history and history of violence as public interest factors. Vazquez Barrera, 2020 WL 1904497, at *7. Of course, a detainee’s criminal history cannot be decisive, because civil detention cannot masquerade for continued criminal detention for a prior offense. See Vazquez Barrera, 2020 WL 1904497, at *7. But again, the Court values these interests. However, courts have also noted the public’s interest in preventing or mitigating outbreaks, which invariably spread to correctional officers and other staff members, their families, and the public. See Vazquez Barrera, 2020 WL 1904497, at *7; see also Thakker,, 2020 WL 1671563, at *8 (Physical detention itself will place a burden on community healthcare systems and will needlessly endanger Petitioners, prison employees, and the greater community. We cannot see the rational basis of such a risk.”). And yet again, the public interest may, in some situations, favor release: “In the highly unusual circumstances posed by the COVID-19 crisis, the continued detention of aging or ill civil detainees does not serve the public's interest. . . . . “" To the contrary, public health and safety are served best by rapidly decreasing the number of individuals detained in confined, unsafe conditions." Basank, 2020 WL 1481503, at *6. D. Detention Facilities and Petitioners ICE has promulgated a set of Performance-Based National Detention Standards (the “National Detention Standards”) which govern the conditions and circumstances under which detainees are held in custody and detention facilities are
27

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 28 of 48 PageID #: 880
operated.18 The PBNDS require ICE detention facilities to follow “guidelines for the prevention and control of infectious and communicable diseases.”19
The CDC has issued “Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities.”20 The “Guidance” sets forth operational and medical recommendations to detention facilities facing suspected or actual COVID-19 cases.
Respondents argue that ICE has taken measures, including some steps listed in the Guidance, in the six facilities now housing Petitioners. Again to their credit, Respondents are careful not to overstate the case, and even clarify that ICE’s responsive measures are “are “admittedly not perfect.” ECF No. 8 at 17. Respondents state that ICE will screen all necessary visitors, and will isolate detainees with or suspected of having COVID-19.
Through declarations, Respondents submit that staff and detainees have been educated on COVID-19, and as of April 22, 2020, all facilities have hand sanitizer, disinfection spray, soap, hot water, and gloves “in every housing unit.” ECF No. 8-2 at 5. But no amounts are provided for these materials. Further, ICE is reviewing its detained population of people who are “at higher risk for severe illness” as identified by the CDC to determine if detention remains appropriate, “considering the
18 2011 Operations Manual ICE Performance-Based National Detention Standards, https://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2011 (last visited Apr. 29, 2020). 19 Id. § 4.3 (II)(10). 20 Available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correctiondetention/guidance-correctional-detention.html (last visited Apr. 29, 2020).
28

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 29 of 48 PageID #: 881
detainee’s health, public safety and mandatory detention requirements, and adjusted custody conditions, when appropriate, to protect health, safety and well-being of its detainees.” ECF No. 8-2 at 5-6. But no time frames were (or reasonably could) be provided for these decisions. See Coronel v. Decker, No. 20-CV-2472 (AJN), 2020 WL 1487274, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2020) (“Petitioners are uniquely vulnerable to COVID-19. The longer they spend in civil detention, the greater their chances of contracting the disease. A hearing weeks from now may be no relief at all, because Petitioners may contract COVID-19 in the interim and face serious health consequences—including death.”).
Overall, despite the best efforts of ICE officials and officers braving to report for work in detention facilities, “individuals housed within detention centers,” especially including these 16 Petitioners, “remain particularly vulnerable to infections.” Ali v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 4:20-CV-0140, 2020 WL 1666074, at *5 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 2, 2020) (and sources cited therein). Unlike other courts, the undersigned cannot find that the corrective measures evidenced by Respondents are, in and of themselves, enough to moot Petitioners’ claims altogether. This is particularly true when considering the declarations and evidence submitted by Petitioners which indicates that the corrective measures are either woefully inadequate to protect them, or not being implemented at all.
Moreover, a number of Petitioners have been convicted of, and served sentences for, criminal offenses. As discsussed above, however, and as decided by numerous other courts, a conviction alone cannot justify an alien’s otherwise punitive
29

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 30 of 48 PageID #: 882
or unconstitutional detention. The Court will consider, however, criminal convictions to the extent they may indicate violent or dangerous tendencies, especially when likely to be directed at identifiable individuals.
1. The LaSalle Ice Processing Center (“LIPC”) currently houses nine Petitioners: Taluta Helen Dada, Griselda Del Bosque, Suresh Kumar, Nadira Sampath-Grant, Matilde Flores de Saavedra, Pardeep Kumar, Rosabel Carrera, Sonia Lemus-De Jasso, and Helen Saleh.
LIPC is a private detention center run by The GEO Group, Inc. (“GEO”). ECF No. 8-1 at 2. As of April 21, 2020, there were 904 detainees housed at the facility, which has capacity to house 1,170 detainees. ECF No. 8-1 at 2. Also as of April 21, 2020, three detainees had confirmed cases of COVID-19 at LIPC, and there was one suspected case. ECF No. 8-2 at 4. These detainees were isolated from all other detainees. Id. However, according to ICE, seven detainees had confirmed cases of COVID-19 as of April 28, 2020.
Given the known circumstances at LIPC, Petitioners housed there are all at moderate to high risk of exposure.
a. Petitioner Taluta Helen Dada should be released. Dada has neither tested positive nor reported, of record, symptoms of COVID19. And while Dada, at age 40, is younger than the CDC’s risk threshold, Dada suffers from underlying medical issues that place her at elevated risk. ECF No. 8-1 at 3. Dada states that she suffers from Graves’ Disease, which has required hospitalizations, radiation, and immunosuppressants. ECF No. 2-7 at 1. Dada also alleges that she suffers from hypothyroidism, asthma, malnutrition, and is immunocompromised. Id. at 1-2.
30

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 31 of 48 PageID #: 883

Dada alleges that she is housed in dorm Falcon-D, which is at capacity with 80

detainees. ECF No. 2-7 at 2. Her dorm shares three working toilets, six showers,

and eight telephones. Id. The toilets, showers, and telephones are sprayed by other

detainees in the voluntary work program once a day, but those detainees do not wear

masks. Id. Detainees in her dorm sleep in bunk beds about a yard and a half apart,

and there is no hand sanitizer available. Id.

Dada was convicted in this District Court of conspiracy to defraud the United

States to obtain immigration status, making false statements in connection with

immigration documents, and mail fraud with forfeiture allegations. See id.; United

States v. Dada, 3:18-CR-0086 (W.D. La.). She is currently awaiting a hearing with

the immigration court. ECF No. 8-1 at 3. Therefore, she is not subject to a final order

of removal. Dada alleges that she would live with her sister in Ruston, Louisiana if

released. ECF No. 2-7 at 3.

Respondents did not state whether it considers Dada “at higher risk,” or

whether it has evaluated the appropriateness of her detention, specifically.

Dada’s immigration and related convictions, while significant, do not indicate

particularized risks of harm to the public, and do not outweigh the significant health

risks she faces and the other factors favoring her release.

b.

Petitioner Griselda Del Bosque should be released.

Del Bosque is 57 years-old and reportedly suffers from asthma, which puts her

at elevated risk for COVID-19 complications. Her asthma is only partially controlled

by the inhaler she was provided at LIPC. ECF No. 2-8 at 1. Del Bosque “has had

31

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 32 of 48 PageID #: 884
numerous asthma attacks and coughing fits while she has been detained.” ECF No. 1 at 13. She also suffers from glaucoma and chronic arm, back, and knee pain. Id. She has neither tested positive nor reported, of record, symptoms of COVID-19.
Del Bosque states that she is housed in dorm Alpha-D with 80 other women whose beds are “less than a foot” apart. ECF No. 2-8 at 1. These 80 detainees also share three toilets, six showers, and eight telephones. Id.
Like Dada, Griselda Del Bosque (Del Bosque) is awaiting a hearing with the immigration court. She has not been ordered removed. ECF No. 8-1 at 4. Del Bosque recently completed a 235-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, and she has been in ICE custody since January 3, 2020. ECF No. 8-1 at 3-4. Del Bosque maintains that she would reside with her daughter in Dallas, Texas, if released. ECF No. 2-8.
Respondents did not state whether it considers Del Bosque “at higher risk,” or whether it has evaluated the appropriateness of her detention, specifically.
Del Bosque’s narcotics conviction clearly arose from a serious offense. But she served her sentence, and has been in federal custody for a substantial amount of time. The nature of the offense, while significant, does not indicate violent tendencies or a particularized risk of harm. In fact, the length of the associated sentence and subsequent immigration custody mitigates the risk of harm to the public. And Del Bosque’s criminal history does not outweigh the significant health risks she faces and the other factors favoring her release. This is particularly true given her asthmatic condition, which is respiratory in nature.
32

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 33 of 48 PageID #: 885
c. Petitioner Suresh Kumar should be released. Kumar is only 37 years old, but he is at risk due to severe malnutrition resulting from a hunger strike. ECF No. 1 at 14. Kumar reports being force-fed liquid nutrients through a tube that runs through his nose and into his esophagus. ECF No. 2-13 at 1. S. Kumar alleges that he was diagnosed with Hepatitis C and a chronic liver infection. Id. He has neither tested positive nor reported, of record, symptoms of COVID-19. Kumar reports that he is confined with Pardeep Kumar “in a 10 x 10 small room in the medical unit.” ECF No. 2-13 at 1. S. Kumar alleges that the doctors do not wear masks when force-feeding him. Id. Although Suresh Kumar (“Kumar”) was ordered removed on July 11, 2019, his appeal of that order still is pending with the Board of Immigration Appeals. ECF No. 8-1 at 4. Respondents do not allege that Kumar was ever convicted of a crime in the United States. The Court is also unaware of any criminal history. If released, Kumar will reside with his brother-in-law in Grants Pass, Oregon. ECF No. 2-13 at 2. Respondents did not state whether it considers S. Kumar “at higher risk,” or whether it has evaluated the appropriateness of his detention, specifically. Relevant factors – particularly Kumar’s health conditions and attendant risks of contracting COVID-19, and Kumar’s lack of criminal history – favor his release.
d. Petitioner Pardeep Kumar should be released. Pardeep Kumar (“P. Kumar”) is also at increased risk due to severe malnourishment from a hunger strike. ECF No. 1 at 14. P. Kumar reportedly
33

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 34 of 48 PageID #: 886
suffered a kidney infection in March 2020. P. Kumar has neither tested positive nor reported, of record, symptoms of COVID-19.
Respondents do not claim that P. Kumar was convicted of a crime in the United States. The Court is also unaware that he has any criminal history. P. Kumar’s appeal of his order of removal is also pending with the Board of Immigration Appeals. ECF No. 8-1 at 5. Although ICE attempted to deport P. Kumar in February, 2020, the pilot refused due to P. Kumar’s emaciated appearance. ECF No. 2-12 at 1. P. Kumar will reside with his uncle in Kent, Washington if released. ECF No. 1-12 at 2.
Respondents do not state whether it considers P. Kumar “at higher risk,” or whether it has evaluated the appropriateness of his detention, specifically.
For the same reasons as stated regarding Petitioner Kumar above, relevant factors favor P. Kumar’s release.
e. Petitioner Nadira Sampath-Grant should be released. Nadira Sampath-Grant (“Sampath-Grant”) is at great risk because she suffers from diabetes and diabetic-related complications such as neuropathy and issues with her kidneys. She relies on oral medication for her diabetic care. ECF No. 1 at 13. Sampath-Grant is 53 years old. ECF No. 2-18 at 1. Sampath-Grant has neither tested positive nor reported, of record, symptoms of COVID-19. Sampath-Grant is also housed in dorm Falcon-D with 80 detainees. As of the date of her declaration, Sampath-Grant reports that masks, gloves, and sanitizer were not available to detainees. ECF No. 2-18 at 1. Sampath-Grant submitted an
34

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 35 of 48 PageID #: 887
updated declaration dated April 21, 2020, indicating continued soap shortages. ECF No. 9-5 at 1. Sampath-Grant indicates that she has waited days waiting for soap. Id. Sampath-Grant also indicated that a detainee with fever was returned to the dorm after requesting medical care. Id.
ICE states that Sampath-Grant was convicted of conspiracy to dispense and distribute oxycodone in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. After service of her sentence, she was ordered removed. ECF No. 8-1 at 4. ICE is “attempting to obtain travel documents” for her removal. Id. Of course, there is no certain information as to if or when travel documents will be obtained. If released, she would reside with her husband and son in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. ECF No. 2-18 at 2.
Respondents do not state whether it considers Sampath-Grant “at higher risk,” or whether it has evaluated the appropriateness of her detention, specifically.
For the same reasons stated above as to Petitioner Del Bosque, SampathGrant’s narcotics-related criminal history, while significant, does not outweigh the severe risks posed by her detention.
f. Matilde Flores de Saavedra Factors also weigh in favor of releasing Matilde Flores de Saavedra (“Flores de Saavedra”), who is at increased risk of complications from COVID-19 due to her age and medical conditions. Flores de Saavedra is 78 years old and was recently diagnosed with diabetes, which remains uncontrolled, and hypertension. ECF No. 2-
35

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 36 of 48 PageID #: 888
10 at 1; No. 1 at 21. Flores de Saavedra has neither tested positive nor reported, of record, symptoms of COVID-19.
Flores de Saavedra is also housed in dorm Falcon-D, with close bunks and oncedaily cleaning by detainees without masks. ECF. No. 2-10 at 1.
Like Dada and Del Bosque, Flores de Saavedra is awaiting a hearing with the immigration court. Last year she completed an eight-month sentence for conspiracy to transport undocumented aliens. ECF No. 8-1 at 4. If released, Flores de Saavedra would reside with her son in Falfurrias, Texas.
Respondents did not state whether it considers Flores de Saavedra “at higher risk,” or whether it has evaluated the appropriateness of her detention, specifically.
For the same reasons stated above, Flores de Saavedra’s immigration and related offenses, while significant, do not outweigh the other factors favoring her release, including her advanced age and the severe health risks she faces if detained.
g. Petitioner Rosabel Carrera should be released. Rosabel Carrera (“Carrera”) is also at a severely heightened risk of complications if she contracts COVID-19. She is a 59-year-old with obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. ECF No. 2-6 at 1. She also has a history of heart attack and stroke. Id. Carrera is also housed in dorm Falcon-D. She, too, reported the 80 women in her dorm sharing three working toilets and six showers, with no access to disinfectants. ECF No. 2-6 at 1. In an updated declaration, Carrera reports that she recently went to the medical unit for a sore throat, “[a]mong other complaints,” and
36

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 37 of 48 PageID #: 889
she was not tested for COVID-19. ECF No. 9-8 at 1. Carrera also states that “guards sometimes wear masks, but sometimes they do not.” Id. Detainees are sometimes left without soap and a shortage of cleaning supplies. Id.
An immigration judge terminated removal proceedings against Carrera in 2019, but ICE successfully appealed the decision. Carrera is now awaiting a hearing with the immigration court. ECF No. 8-1 at 5.
Respondents do not state whether it considers Carrera “at higher risk,” or whether it has evaluated the appropriateness of her detention, specifically.
While Carrera reported one generalized symptom consistent with COVID-19, she has not tested positive, she has not reported it was severe, and she has not reported other symptoms or a protracted period of illness. She does, however, face a substantial risk of contracting the virus if detained, and no other factors strongly favor her detention.
h. Petitioner Sonia Lemus Tejada Dejaso should be removed. Sonia Lemus Tejada Dejaso (“Dejaso”) is 53 years old and suffers from health conditions that leave her vulnerable to complications if she contracts COVID-19. Dejaso reportedly has heart disease and hypertension. Dejaso has neither tested positive nor reported, of record, symptoms of COVID-19. After her conviction of harboring an alien for private gain, Dejaso was ordered removed. Her appeal is pending. ECF No. 8-1 at 5. Respondents do not state whether it considers Dejaso “at higher risk,” or whether it has evaluated the appropriateness of her detention, specifically.
37

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 38 of 48 PageID #: 890
Dejaso’s immigration convictions, while significant, do not indicate particularized risks of harm to the public, and do not outweigh the significant health risks she faces and the other factors favoring her release.
i. Petitioner Hasan Saleh should be released. Factors also weigh in favor of release for Hasan Saleh (“Saleh”). Saleh is 62 years old, and he suffers from diabetes, hypertension, and high cholesterol. ECF No. 1 at 15. Saleh has neither tested positive nor reported, of record, symptoms of COVID-19. Saleh is housed in dorm Eagle-Charlie with about 72 other men. As of the date of his declaration, none of the guards or detainees had masks or gloves. ECF No. 217 at 1. Saleh was ordered removed in February 2020 after service of his sentence for conspiracy to commit food stamp and wire fraud. ECF No. 8-1 at 5-6. Saleh would reside with his wife and five children in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida if he is released. ECF No. 2-17 at 1. Respondents do not state whether it considers Saleh “at higher risk,” or whether it has evaluated the appropriateness of his detention, specifically. Saleh’s financial crimes convictions, while significant, do not indicate particularized risks of harm to the public, and do not outweigh the significant health risks he faces and the other factors favoring his release. In parciular, his advanced age and underlying health conditions place him at elevated risk if detained.
38

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 39 of 48 PageID #: 891
2. Richwood Detention Center currently houses one Petitioner: Abraham Gebremedhim Gebremichael
According Hartnett’s declaration, Richwood Detention Center (“Richwood”) is a private detention center run by LaSalle Corrections Corporation (“LCC”). ECF No. 8-1 at 2. As of April 21, 2020, there were 306 detainees housed at the facility, which has capacity to house 1,000 detainees. ECF No. 8-1 at 2. The ICE detainees are housed separately from other detainees. ECF No. 8-2 at 3.
As of April 21, 2020, Richwood had 29 detainees with confirmed cases of COVID-19 and five suspected cases. Many of the detainees with COVID-19 were transferred to Richwood from other facilities. ECF No. 8-2 at 4. These detainees “are isolated when possible” and are separated from the other population. Id. According to ICE, 45 detainees at Richwood had confirmed cases of COVID-19 as of April 28, 2020. And according to news reports cited above, two correctional officers have died of symptoms consistent with COVID-19.
Petitioner housed at this detention facility faces an elevated risk of exposure to, and contraction of, COVID-19.
a. Petitioner Abraham Gebremedhim Gebremichael should be released.
Although Abraham Gebremedhim Gebremichael (“Gebremichael”)’s age of 33 does not put him at high risk according to the CDC, he suffers from bradycardia and a slow heartbeat, which leaves his body without sufficient oxygen. ECF No. 2-11 at 1. He also experiences shortness of breath and fatigue as a result of his medical conditions. Id.
39

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 40 of 48 PageID #: 892
Gebremichael states he is housed in Unit C, with 110 other people. ECF No. 2-11 at 1. Gebremichael states that, as of the date of his declaration, there were insufficient cleaning supplies and soap. ECF No. 2-11 at 2.
In his declaration, Gebremichael alleges that he has a cough, along with six or seven other people in his unit. He says one other detainee had a high fever, but still slept in the Unit C. ECF No. 2-11 at 2.
Gebremichael has been in ICE custody since August 13, 2019. He had a scheduled immigration court hearing on April 29, 2020. ECF No. 8-1 at 6. Respondents do not allege that Gebremichael was ever convicted of a crime.
Respondents do not state whether it considers Gebremichael “at higher risk,” or whether it has evaluated the appropriateness of his detention, specifically. If released, he would reside with his cousin in Houston, Texas. ECF No. 1 at 14.
Gebremichael has experienced one generalized symptom consistent with COVID-19, but he has not tested positive or reported a protracted illness or other symptoms. symptoms consistent with COVID-19. With no criminal history, and a lengthy period of immigration detention, relevant factors, weigh in favor of his release.
3. Catahoula Correctional Center currently houses two Petitioners: Ronaldo Alex Colon and Karthikeyan Ponnusamy.
According Hartnett’s declaration, Catahoula Correctional Center (“CCC”). CCC is a private detention center run by LaSalle Corrections Corporation (“LCC”). ECF No. 8-1 at 2. As of April 21, 2020, there were 529 detainees housed at the facility, which has capacity to house 750 detainees. ECF No. 8-1 at 3.
40

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 41 of 48 PageID #: 893
Also as of April 21, 2020, CCC had one detainee that had tested positive for COVID-19, but he was transferred to Richwood. There were also three suspected cases who were isolated until their COVID-19 tests came back negative. ECF No. 82 at 4. According to ICE, seven detainees at CCC tested positive for COVID-19 as of April 28, 2020.
With growing reported cases, Petitioners housed in this facility face a moderate to high risk of exposure or contraction.
a. Petitioner Ronaldo Alex Colon should be released. Ronaldo Alex Colon (“Colon”) is a 47-year-old detainee with hypertension and high cholesterol. ECF No. 1 at 15. Colon alleges that he is in Room B with 100 others, sharing three toilets, one urinal, and six showers. ECF No. 2-4 at 1. As of the date of his declaration, Colon alleges that CCC is lacking cleaning supplies, gloves, and masks. Id. He also alleges that several people had flu-like symptoms. Id. Colon submitted an updated declaration on April 22, 2020. ECF NO. 9-7 at 1. Colon states that he was provided a “basic piece of cloth” to cover his mouth, but not a medical mask. Id. Colon says there are “still more than 100 people in the dorms closed in together for 23 hours of the day.” Id. Colon alleges that utensils are rinsed only with hot water, and bathrooms only have small bars of soap. Id. Colon states that new detainees are still arriving daily. Id. Colon also states that CCC guards recently threw tear gas into the dorms. Id. Colon indicates that he recently had flulike symptoms, but does not state that he was tested for COVID-19. Id.
41

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 42 of 48 PageID #: 894
Colon has been detained for over a year since entering the United States. ECF No. 2-4 at 1; ECF No. 8-1 at 6. He has not been convicted of a crime. Colon’s appeal of his removal order is pending. ECF No. 8-1 at 6.
Respondents do not state whether it considers Colon “at higher risk,” or whether it has evaluated the appropriateness of his detention, specifically. If released, Colon would reside with his sister in New York, New York. ECF No. 2-4 at 1.
For all of the reasons stated regarding Petitioner Gebremichael above, relevant factors favor Petitioner Colon’s release.
b. Petitioner Kathikeyan Ponnusamy should be released. Although Karthikeyan Ponnusamy is only 41, he suffers from a host of medical conditions that put him at greater risk of complications from COVID-19. Specifically, Ponnusamy has diabetes, hypertension, and Low Lactate Dehydrogenase—a blood thickening disease. ECF No. 2-15 at 1. Ponnusamy also reports suffering from depression, anxiety, and insomnia. Id. Ponnusamy has neither tested positive nor reported, of record, symptoms of COVID-19.
Ponnusamy has been in custody since August 2019, and was ordered removed in January 2020. His appeal of the removal order is pending. ECF No. 8-1 at 6-7. There are no claims that he has ever been convicted of a crime.
Respondents do not state whether it considers Ponnusamy “at higher risk,” or whether it has evaluated the appropriateness of his detention, specifically. If released, he would reside in Austin, Texas. ECF No. 2-15 at 2.
42

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 43 of 48 PageID #: 895
Relevant factors – including a lack of criminal history and serious underlying health conditions – favor Ponnusamy’s release.
4. Jackson Parish Correctional Center currently houses one Petitioner: Aracelio Rodriguez.
According Hartnett’s declaration, Jackson Parish Correctional Center (“JPCC”) is a private detention center run by LCC. ECF No. 8-1 at 3. As of April 21, 2020, the date of his declaration, there were 502 detainees housed at the facility, which has capacity to house 1,000 detainees. ECF No. 8-1 at 3.
As of the dates of Hartnett’s declaration, JPCC had no suspected or confirmed cases of COVID-19. According to the ICE website, there has been no change.
a. Petitioner Aracelio Rodriguez should not be released. Aracelio Rodriguez is 61 years old and has “severe asthma.” ECF No. 1 at 15. Rodriguez reports that he has “trouble breathing every day.” ECF No. 2-16 at 1. Rodriguez has neither tested positive nor reported, of record, symptoms of COVID19. Rodriguez is housed in “one big dorm of about 100 people and there are only about 3 feet between each bed.” ECF No. 2-16 at 2. As of the date of his declaration, he often lacked soap to wash his hands, and the staff did not wear masks or gloves. Id. Rodriguez has been in ICE custody since applying for entry to the United States in October 2019. He was ordered removed on March 5, 2020, and his removal to Cuba is being arranged. ECF No. 8-1 at 7. ICE does not report any criminal
43

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 44 of 48 PageID #: 896
history. Rodriguez provides that he would reside with his son in West Palm Beach, Florida if he is released. ECF No. 2-16 at 2.
Respondents do not state whether it considers Rodriguez “at higher risk,” or whether it has evaluated the appropriateness of his detention, specifically.
Rodriguez is a high-risk detainee due to his advanced age and underlying medical conditions. But the risk of exposure at JPCC seems to be minimal at this point, with no confirmed or suspected cases having been reported, and minor shortcomings in sanitization having been reported. Accordingly, relevant factors do not presently favor Rodriguez’s release.
5. Pine Prairie ICE Processing Center currently houses one Petitioner: Desmond Nkobenei.
According Hartnett’s declaration, Pine Prairie ICE Processing Center (“PPIPC”) is a private detention center run by GEO. ECF No. 8-1 at 3. As of Hartnett’s declaration, there were 441 detainees housed at the facility, which has capacity to house 730 detainees. ECF No. 8-1 at 3.
Hartnett’s declaration also reports seven detainees with confirmed cases of COVID-19 and one suspected case at PPIC. According to ICE’s website, 19 detainees at PPIC had confirmed cases of COVID-19 as of April 29, 2020.
Petitioners at this facility face a moderate to high risk of exposure or contraction.
a. Petitioner Desmond Nkobenei should be released. Desmond Nkobenei is only 25 years old, but suffers from hypertension. Nkobenei states that his medication has been increased several times. ECF No. 2-14
44

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 45 of 48 PageID #: 897
at 1. Nkobenei has neither tested positive nor reported, of record, symptoms of COVID-19.
Nkobenei states that he is housed with 70 to 74 people in a small dorm with bunks less than a meter apart. Detainees share two working toilets, and there is no sanitizer or disinfectant. ECF No. 2-14 at 1. Nkobenei submitted an updated declaration on April 21, 2020, indicating that he and other detainees were each provided one single-use surgical mask and instructed to wash after each use. ECF No. 9-6 at 1. Nkobenei alleges that guards first threatened to withhold pay if he did not sign a form stating he had received an N95 mask. Nkobenei also states that his dorm is under quarantine. Id. Nkobenei also reports 17 new detainees were transferred into the facility on April 19, 2020. Id.
Nkobenei has been in custody since August 2019 when he entered the United States. He was ordered removed in February 2020, and his appeal is pending. ECF No. 8-1 at 7. If released, Nkobenei would reside with his cousin in Capitol Heights, Maryland. ECF No. 1 at 16.
Relevant factors – including his lack of criminal history, and his underlying medical conditions, which are among the conditions that place individuals at highest risk – favor Nkobenei’s release.
6. Winn Correctional Center currently houses two Petitioners: Sigous Asgari and Eduardo Devora Espinosa.
According Hartnett’s declaration, Winn Correctional Center (“WCC”) is a private detention center run by LCC. ECF No. 8-1 at 2. As of April 21, 2020, there
45

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 46 of 48 PageID #: 898
were 795 ICE detainees housed at the facility, which has capacity to house 1,553 detainees. ECF No. 8-1 at 2.
As of April 21, 2020, WCC had three detainees with confirmed cases of COVID19 and one suspected case. ECF No. 8-1 at 2. According to ICE’s website, the numbers have not changed.
Petitioners housed at this facility face moderate to high risk of exposure and contraction.
a. Petitioner Sigous Asgari should not be released. According to updated filings from Petitioners’ counsel, Sigous Asgari (“Asgari”) has tested positive for COVID-19. ECF No. 15. Asgari has also developed a blood clot. Id. Asgari is 59 years old and has a history of Grade 2 Fatty Liver Disease as well as “hypertension and a chronic lung condition which has led to several lung infections and bouts with pneumonia.” Id.; ECF No. 1 at 12. Asgari’s medical conditions put him at great risk of complications from COVID-19. At last reporting, Asgari is reportedly under medical supervision in a negative pressure isolation unit at Winn. ECF No. 15. Although counsel for Asgari claims that ICE’s care is, generally, deficient and dangerous to detainees like Asgari, the record presently contains no other specific information beyond those representations as to Asgari’s actual treatment at Winn. Counsel for Respondents has maintained at least some contact with Winn medical personnel, who reported Asgari remained under medical supervision.
46

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 47 of 48 PageID #: 899
Asgari was scheduled for removal in March and April 2020, but the flights were cancelled due to COVID-19 restrictions. ECF No. 8-1 at 6. Asgari would reportedly live with a daughter in Redwood City, California if released. ECF No. 1 at 12.
Asgari’s circumstances – again, at present and given what little has been reported of record – do not warrant release. Nor is the Court, at present, convinced that Asgari’s release would not endanger the public, and would necessarily improve, his medical condition. Should more information become known, this calculus may change. But given Asgari’s unfortunate circumstances, and the lack of known details or alternatives at present, Asgari should not be released.
b. Petitioner Eduardo Devora Espinosa has already been released. According to Hartnett’s declaration, Eduardo Devora Espinosa (“Espinosa”) was released on parole on April 15, 2020. Therefore, his request for release is moot. III. Conclusion IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court GRANT IN PART Petitioners’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 2) in the form of a PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION requiring the IMMEDIATE RELEASE of the Petitioners identified above pending resolution of their immigration proceedings or removal, and under CONDITIONS to be specified by DHS/ICE but to exclude subsequent arrest and detention, unless an identified Petitioner violates another condition of release, attempts to abscond, or commits any criminal offense. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court decline to require any Petitioner released to post a bond or other security. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c); A.T.N.
47

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 48 of 48 PageID #: 900
Indus., Inc. v. Gross , 632 F. App'x 185, 192 (5th Cir. 2015) (“[U]nder Rule 65(c), a court may elect to require no security at all.”) (internal citation and quotation omitted).
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 2) be DENIED IN PART in all other respects, and as to all other Petitioners.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, given the urgency of the relief sought and recommended above, the objections periods set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) be EXPEDITED, and that any party wishing to object to this Report and Recommendation do so on or before Monday, May 4, 2020. The District Judge will consider timely objections before issuing a final ruling. A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed factual findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this Report and Recommendation shall bar that party from attacking either the factual findings or the legal conclusions accepted by the District Judge, except upon grounds of plain error.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Alexandria, Louisiana, on this 30th day of April 2020.
__________________________________________ JOSEPH H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
48

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 24 Filed 05/22/20 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1133

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 24 Filed 05/22/20 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 1134

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 24 Filed 05/22/20 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 1135

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 24 Filed 05/22/20 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 1136

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 24 Filed 05/22/20 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 1137

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 24 Filed 05/22/20 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 1138

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 9 Filed 04/23/20 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 549

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DADA, et al.,

Petitioners-Plaintiffs,

Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-458

v. WITTE, et al.,

Judge Dee D. Drell Magistrate Judge Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes

Respondents-Defendants.

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 9 Filed 04/23/20 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 550
I. COVID-19 Cases Have Exploded in Louisiana ICE Detention Centers. When this action was filed, on April 14, 2020, ICE was reporting that there were six
confirmed cases of COVID-19 at all of the ICE detention facilities in Louisiana, with two at Pine Prairie, and one each at Winn and Richwood.1 As of today, April 23 – only nine days later – ICE is publicly reporting that there are 51 confirmed cases of COVID-19 at its Louisiana detention centers, with 28 at Richwood, 15 at Pine Prairie, three at LaSalle ICE Processing Center, two at Winn, and one at Catahoula – a 750% increase. Confirmed cases of COVID-19 have exploded within the Louisiana ICE detention centers.2 ICE’s willful refusal to take proper public safety measures threatens Plaintiffs’ lives.
II. ICE’s Response Fails to Follow and Even Contradicts CDC Guidelines, Willfully Endangering Plaintiffs.
ICE claims to be adhering to CDC guidelines, but it is not, and, in important areas, its protocols actually contradict CDC guidelines. Both Dr. Susan Hassig3 and Dr. Homer Venters4
1 ECF No. 2-2 at 6. 2 ICE COVID-19 Guidance, https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus (Apr. 23, 2020); Huber Supp. Decl., Addendum A 3 Dr. Susan E. Hassig, MPH, DrPH is Associate Professor of Epidemiology and Director of the MPH Program in Epidemiology at the Tulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine. She has conducted research and taught in the area of infectious disease epidemiology for over 30 years. That time period has seen HIV, SARS, H1N1 influenza, Zika, and Ebola, as well as COVID-19. Hassig Decl. ¶1. 4 Dr. Homer Venters is a physician and epidemiologist whose long experience with correctional health includes two years visiting immigration detention centers and conducting analyses of physical and mental health policies and procedures for people detained by the Department of Homeland Security. It also includes working as Deputy Medical Director, Medical Director, Assistant Commissioner and Chief Medical Officer for the NYC Jail

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 9 Filed 04/23/20 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 551
have reviewed ICE’s April 10 Pandemic Response Requirements (“PRR”), which ICE’s declarant
states is the source of ICE’s COVID-19 protocols.5 Both have found it highly deficient. As detailed
in their attached declarations, the PRR contradict and omit critical aspects of the CDC Guidance:
● Transfers: To limit the spread of COVID-19, the CDC Guidance6 provides (at 14) that all transfers of detained persons should be suspended, and should only occur when “absolutely necessary.” The PRR’s recommendation to limit transfers (at 13), however, only applies to “non-ICE populations,” and thus does not limit transfers of Plaintiffs or others. See also Venters Second Supp. Decl. (“Venters Decl.”) ¶ 6(d); Hassig Decl. ¶¶10-11. This is critical, as ICE has continued to transfer individuals – even with confirmed COVID-19 positive tests – to and from the facilities at issue, which ICE’s declarant admits.7
● Social distancing: ICE’s PRR fails to address social distancing in critical areas of detention centers, including intake pens, clinical and medication lines, bathroom and shower areas, sally ports, and staff areas. Venters Decl. ¶ 6(a). It also only requires social distancing “whenever possible,” but a distance of 6 feet from any other people must be maintained at all times. Hassig Decl. ¶7. As a result, bunk beds should not be used, because they cannot guarantee the required social distancing. Hassig Decl. ¶¶7, 12. ICE claims that the facilities at issue here are not overcrowded, but the appropriate standard for how much space is required is what is needed for social distancing. Dr. Hassig estimates that approximately 144 square feet of space are required for each detained person. Hassig Decl. ¶7.
● Washing hands: The PRR requires everyone in detention facilities to wash their hands for 20 seconds, but does not explain how to do this in facilities that utilize metered faucets. Venters Decl. ¶ 6(e).
● Cleaning and disinfecting protocols: The PRR omits many critical aspects of cleaning and disinfection set forth in the CDC Guidance. Venters Decl. ¶ 6(c). See Hassig Decl. ¶6.
● Education: The PRR omits guidance on the importance of educating detained people about changes to their daily routine and how they can contribute to risk reduction, both of which are explicitly identified by the CDC Guidance. Venters Decl. ¶ 6(b).
● Detained persons who have come in close contact with COVID-19: The CDC Guidance (at 4) defines “quarantine,” which addresses confinement of people who have had “close contact” with a COVID-19 case. To safeguard people in quarantine, and to try to prevent the spread of the disease, the CDC Guidance (at 19-21) includes specific protocols that
Correctional Health Service, covering all 12 of New York City’s jails. During this time, Dr. Venters managed several infectious disease outbreaks, including the H1N1 influenza in 2009. Venters Decl. I ¶¶1-4. 5 ECF No. 8-2 ¶¶7-9. 6 CDC, Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities, available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/guidance-correctional-detention.pdf. 7 ECF No. 8-1 ¶15(i); Lopez Supp. Decl. ¶¶4,5; Colon Supp. Decl. ¶5; Nkobenei Supp. Decl. ¶6; Huber Supp. Decl. ¶9.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 9 Filed 04/23/20 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 552
must be followed in quarantined areas, covering such topics as cohorting of close contacts, use of facemasks by quarantined people, use of personal protective equipment (“PPE”) by staff, etc. ICE’s PRR, however, has a single paragraph addressing quarantine of close contacts (at 12), omitting all of the specific safety protocols found in the CDC Guidance. See also Venters Decl. ¶ 1(b); Hassig Decl. ¶¶8-9.
● Staff who have come in close contact with COVID-19: ICE’s PRR omits several critical aspects of the CDC Guidance concerning contact between critical staff and suspected or known cases of COVID-19. Venters Decl. ¶ 1(a).
● Facility COVID-19 mitigation plans: Although ICE’s PRR (at 4) states that each detention facility is required to have a COVID-19 mitigation plan in place, Dr. Venters (who has reviewed policies and procedures in detention settings around the nation) has found that many facilities do not have such a plan, and thus have already failed to meet many basic elements of the COVID-19 responses recommended by the CDC. Venters Decl. ¶ 2. Importantly, Defendants have never identified, produced, or even referred to any such plans for any of the six facilities at issue in this case.
● People with risk factors: ICE’s PRR omits risk factors identified in the CDC Guidance and contradicts the risk factors listed in recent ICE guidance. Further, although the PRR recognizes (at 3) that people with risk factors face a higher mortality rate and a higher risk for more serious COVID-19 illness, it does not include any measures to protect those people from being infected unless and until they are in a quarantine area or are symptomatic, and does not provide for increased surveillance. Venters Decl. ¶¶ 3-5.
● Respiratory protection program: ICE’s PRR omits provisions from the CDC Guidance requiring a respiratory protection program ensuring that staff and detained people are fit tested for respiratory protection they will need. Id. ¶ 6(f).
III. ICE’s Protocols Are Not Being Followed Within These Facilities.
Moreover – and even more dangerous - as the attached declarations state, ICE is not
actually implementing even its own protocols, as deficient as they are.
● Cohorting: The PRR says that individuals will not be cohorted together unless they have a positive test. However, in these facilities, ICE is routinely cohorting suspected cases together, which will lead to more infection.8 ICE is also cohorting people who are merely exposed to symptomatic individuals, and establishing whole dorms for such cohorting, which will only lead to more infection.9
8 Hassig Decl. ¶ 8, Huber Supp. Decl. ¶ 4; Lopez Supp. Decl. ¶ 2. 9 Sampath Grant Supp. Decl. ¶ 7; Nkobenei Supp. Decl. ¶ 4; Huber Supp. Decl. ¶ 8.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 9 Filed 04/23/20 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 553
● Isolation: Nearly all the facilities lack negative-pressure rooms, which are necessary for effective isolation.10 ICE has identified only Pine Prairie as having any negative pressure rooms, and having only four at that, despite having 15 confirmed cases.11
● Social Distancing: Although the PRR requires social distancing “where possible,” the facilities continue to lack necessary space for Plaintiffs to adequately maintain appropriate social distancing.12
● Soap and PPE: ICE reports that it is ensuring that detained persons and staff are being supplied with appropriate soap and PPE, including masks. However, detained persons are being given only one surgical mask and being told to wash it13; facility staff are only infrequently wearing masks or not wearing them at all14; and there are still soap shortages.15 Most disturbing, some even report being asked to sign waivers of liability before being given masks.16
● Education: Despite ICE’s position that it is educating detained people about proper COVID-19 public health measures, reports from the facilities are that staff are saying that COVID-19 is “fake news”17 and that detained individuals are being beaten and tear gassed when they ask for information regarding COVID-19.18
● Testing: ICE reports that it is testing symptomatic individuals, but others report that symptomatic individuals have not been tested.19 Further, in testimony to Congress, Acting ICE Director Albence states that ICE has tested only about 400 of some 32,000 detained individuals to date, and that ICE lacks sufficient tests to meet its needs.20
IV. ICE’s Custodial Review Has Ended and Failed to Follow CDC Guidelines.
In both of his declarations, ICE’s declarant makes the claim that ICE is continuing to
review detained individuals for release. On April 17, Defendant Acting ICE Director Matthew T.
10 Bazzano Decl. ¶15; Meyer Decl. ¶10. 11 ECF No. 8-1 ¶14. 12 Colon Supp. Decl. ¶ 5; Sampath Grant Supp. Decl. ¶ 8; Huber Supp. Decl. ¶ 7. 13 Nkobenei Supp. Decl. ¶¶2-3 14 Colon Supp. Decl. ¶4; Nkobenei Supp. Decl. ¶5; Sampath Grant Supp. Decl. ¶8; Huber Supp. Decl. ¶4. 15 Sampath Grant Supp. Decl. ¶2; Carrera Supp Decl. ¶3; Huber Supp. Decl. ¶6. 16 Lopez Supp. Decl. ¶8, Nkobenei Supp. Decl. ¶2. 17 Nkobenei Decl. ¶ 6, Devora Espinsoa Decl. ¶6, Huber Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 10-11. 18 Huber Supp. Decl. ¶15, Colon Supp. Decl. ¶8; del Bosque Decl. ¶10, Tejada Dejaso Decl. ¶¶10-11. 19 Lopez Supp. Decl. ¶3; Colon Supp. Decl. ¶6. 20 Committee on Oversight and Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, DHS Officials Refuse to Release Asylum Seekers and Other Non-Violent Detainees Despite Spread of Coronavirus (April 17, 2020) available at https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/dhs-officials-refuse-to-release-asylum-seekers-and-other-nonviolent-detainees.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 9 Filed 04/23/20 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 554
Albence testified before Congress that ICE had released approximately 700 individuals through its own review, out of nearly 32,000 individuals in detention.21 However, Defendant Albence also
told Congress that ICE had finished its review and would not be releasing any additional
individuals, admitting that the motivation not to release more is not because ICE believes it can
actually manage this uncontrollable health crisis in its facilities; but rather to muscularly project that ICE “is enforcing our immigration laws.”22
ARGUMENT
A. The Court Has Jurisdiction Over the Habeas Claims Because the Only Remedy Sought is Release, and it Independently Has Jurisdiction Under Rule 65.
Defendants fundamentally misunderstand the nature of Plaintiffs’ habeas claims under §
2241. First, the most recent analysis by the Fifth Circuit – which Defendants cite but
mischaracterize – makes clear that the Circuit has not accepted the asserted distinction between
habeas challenges to the “fact or duration” of detention and habeas challenges to conditions of confinement. See Poree v. Collins, 866 F.3d 235, 244 (5th Cir. 2017).23
Even if such a distinction existed, Plaintiffs’ challenge sits at the core of the writ. Plaintiffs
do not seek judicial intervention in order to improve their conditions of confinement of the sort of attempted by habeas petitioners in the cases Defendants rely upon, see Defs’ Br. 7.24 As Judge
Ellison in the Southern District of Texas recently stressed in granting a similar TRO under § 2241,
21 Id. 22 Id. 23 In Poree v. Collins, 866 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2017), the court in fact emphasized that “the Supreme Court has not foreclosed” habeas challenges for conditions claims, id. at 244, observed that Fifth Circuit caselaw expressly rejects the distinction, id. (citing Coleman v. Dretke, 409 F.3d 665, 670 (5th Cir. 2005), and then “declin[ed] to address whether habeas is available only for fact or duration claims,” id. This Court should follow Poree’s interpretation of the state of Fifth Circuit law and not, as Defendant proposes, Def. Br. 8, the Western District of New York’s reading of Fifth Circuit law. See Vazquez-Berrera v. Wolf, No. 20-cv-1241, Dkt 41 at 6-7 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2020 (neither the Supreme Court nor the Fifth Circuit foreclosed habeas to address challenges to conditions). 24 Schipke v. Van Buren, 239 F. App’x 85, 86 (5th Cir. 2007) (rejecting habeas where petitioner sought an order “modifying the conditions of her detention.”); Hernandez v. Garrison, 916 F.2d 291, 293 (5th Cir. 1990) rejecting habeas petition seeking access to law library and better medical treatment); Sarres Mendoza v. Barr, 2019 WL 1227494, at *2 (S.D. Tex. 2019) (denying habeas for two billion dollar damages claim regarding conditions).
5

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 9 Filed 04/23/20 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 555
“The mere fact that Plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge requires discussion of conditions in immigration detention does not necessarily bar such a challenge in a habeas petition.” VazquezBerrera v. Wolf, No. 20-cv-1241, Dkt 41 at 8 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2020) (attached as Exhibit 1). Here, Plaintiffs seek “accelerated release,” Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 820-21 (5th Cir. 1997), because of poor conditions, so habeas is the proper vehicle. See Poree, 866 F.3d at 244 (petition seeking transfer to less restrictive facility “properly sounds in habeas.) Indeed, the very premise of the habeas petition – supported by overwhelming record evidence – is that the conditions producing harm in these circumstances cannot be remediated by any reforms or judicial orders, which therefore renders the fact of their continued detention unlawful under due process. See Vazquez Berrera, 20-cv-1241, at 7 (“there are no conditions of confinement that are sufficient to prevent irreparable constitutional injury.”). Even in jurisdictions that accept a purported distinction between fact and conditions claims in habeas, the near consensus of courts have come to the same conclusion. E.g. Malam v. Adducci, No. 20-10829, 2020 WL 1672662, at *2–3 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 5, 2020); Coreas v. Bounds, No. 20-0780, 2020 WL 1663133, at *7 (D. Md. Apr. 3, 2020); Mays v. Dart, No. 20 C 2134, 2020 WL 1812381, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 9, 2020); A.S.M. v. Donahue, No. 20-CV-62, 2020 WL 1847158, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Apr. 10, 2020); Wilson v. Williams, No. 20 cv 794, Dkt. 22 at 10-11 (N.D. Ohio, Apr. 22, 2020).25
Finally, this Court is independently authorized to order release under its inherent equitable power to issue injunctions and temporary restraining orders for constitutional violations. See
25 The more recent cases Defendant relies upon are inapposite. In Livas v. Myers, Judge Doughty did not hold, as Defendant asserts without citation, that the Fifth Circuit does not accept conditions claims in habeas; he merely held the court had simply had no power to order release of individuals criminally detained. 20 cv. 422, Dkt. 30 at 12 (W.D. La. Apr. 22, 2020). In Sacal-Micha v. Longoria, 2020 WL 1518861 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2020), the court did not have the benefit of fulsome briefing on the state of Fifth Circuit law regarding the purported duration-conditions distinction, or on why the claims there in fact related to the duration of detention. In addition, there was not substantial evidence before the court about conditions in the relevant Texas facility, nearly one month ago; here, by contrast, the undisputed evidence demonstrates, that circumstances in Louisiana detention facilities are dire and cannot be improved – that is, habeas release is the only remedy.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 9 Filed 04/23/20 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 556
Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011). Defendants’ curious reliance on Bivens case law to suggest otherwise misunderstands the fundamental distinction between generally prohibited implied damages claims, and centuries-old law permitting injunctive relief for constitutional violations of the kind Plaintiffs seek here. Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908).
B. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their Fifth Amendment claim.26 Defendants cursorily assert that the conditions of Plaintiffs’ continued detention satisfies the Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) reasonable-relation test, because of the government’s generalized interest “to prevent absconding and, in the cases of criminal aliens, to protect the community.” Defs’ Br. 11. The argument is tone deaf. The relevant inquiry is not whether detention in the ordinary course is excessive in relation to any purported governmental interest: we are not living in ordinary times. See Thakker v. Doll, No. 1:20-cv-00480-JEJ, 2020 WL 1671563 at *9 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2020) (“we must acknowledge that the status quo of a mere few weeks ago no longer applies. Our world has been altered with lightning speed, and the results are both unprecedented and ghastly.”). The relevant inquiry is whether continued detention during COVID-19 – which exposes Plaintiffs to the substantial risk of serious illness or death – is excessive.27 See Vazquez Barrera, 20-cv-01241 at *11-12 (“[r]equiring medically vulnerable individuals to remain in a detention facility where they cannot properly protect themselves from transmission of a highly contagious virus with no known cure is not rationally related to a legitimate government objective.”).
26 Plaintiffs have not sought a TRO on their access to justice or Rehabilitation Act claims. 27 In Shepherd and Duvall, the inquiry was not whether pretrial detention by itself served a legitimate government purpose, but “whether legitimate governmental purpose was served by the allowance of the MRSA infection to be present in the […] jail,” Duvall v. Dallas Cty., Tex., 631 F.3d 203, 207 (5th Cir. 2011), or whether “the inadequate medical conditions of which Shepherd complains were reasonably related to a legitimate government purpose.” Shepherd v. Dallas Cty., Tex., No. CIV.A. 305CV1442-D, 2008 WL 656889, at *7 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2008).
7

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 9 Filed 04/23/20 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 557
It is in fact unquestionably excessive in relation to any purported government interest, much less a nonpunitive one. As Judge Ellison stressed, “ICE has many other means besides physical detention to monitor noncitizens and ensure that they are present at removal proceedings and at time of removal,” including routine check ins. Id. at *12.28 Defendants admit as much in suggesting that should the court order relief, Plaintiffs be subject to supervised release. Defs’ Br. 15 n.5.
Ignoring the world around them, Defendants stress that Plaintiffs must demonstrate more than “isolated examples of illness, injury, or even death” or “incidence of disease or infection, standing alone,” Shepherd v. Dallas Cty., 591 F.3d 445, 454 (5th Cir. 2009). In the real world, “the current pandemic is not mere ‘incidence of disease or infection, standing alone.’ Our currently exigent circumstances, in which our communities are engulfed by a novel and highly contagious disease, are unlike any ‘incidence of disease’ that our society has faced in generations.” Vazquez Barrera, 4:20-cv-01241 at *12.
Defendants also fail under the deliberate indifference standard, which applies to “episodic acts or omissions”: Defendants are choosing to put Plaintiffs in a substantial – and obvious – risk of exposure to COVID19 and subsequent likelihood of serious illness or death; a risk which cannot be sufficiently mitigated by their current, halting remedial measures. See Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss., 74 F.3d 633, 647-8 (5th Cir. 1996). As described supra, despite the lack of testing, there are numerous confirmed cases of Covid-19, which hasn’t stopped Defendants from transferring positive cases among facilities, exacerbating the risk of spread. Any measures cited by Defendants, including the April 10 ICE ERO guidance (ECF 8-2 ¶ 9) are patently ineffective, Hassig Decl. ¶¶5-14, and contradicted by Plaintiffs’ firsthand accounts of unsanitary, crowded
28 To state the obvious, Defendants can ensure that Plaintiffs are present at removal proceedings and at removal only if Plaintiffs are able to protect themselves from serious illness or death from COVID-19.
8

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 9 Filed 04/23/20 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 558
conditions, where staff ignore individuals with symptoms consistent with COVID-19, ECF 8-2 ¶¶ 12, 13, 16, 17, 21. See Marlowe v. Leblanc, No. 18-cv-063, Dkt. 115 at 10 (M.D. La. Apr. 23, 2020) (finding prisoner-plaintiff likely to succeed in 8th Amendment deliberate indifference claim because of inability of prison to fully comply with CDC guidelines) (Attached as Exhibit 2).
Indeed, ICE chooses to ignore known risks in its detention facilities, in order to, as ICE Director Albence recently admitted, prove that ICE is “enforcing our immigration laws.” 29 That ICE would prioritize public relations over the known health risks of a vulnerable population is the height of deliberate indifference and arbitrary detention.
Defendants ignore Plaintiffs’ alternate ground for relief: that inadequate access to counsel and the adjudicative process violates Plaintiffs’ procedural due process rights.30
C. Absent an Injunction Plaintiffs Will Suffer Irreparable Harm, and the Public Interest in Public Health and Balance of Equities Favors Release
Contrary to Defendants’ assertion, in the Fifth Circuit, “it is not necessary to demonstrate that harm is inevitable,” only that there is a “significant threat of injury from the impending action, that the injury is imminent.” See Humana, Inc. v. Jacobson, 804 F.2d 1390, 1394 (5th Cir. 1986). According to Defendants’ own evidence, ECF. Doc. 8-2 ¶15 the injury is truly imminent— given the rapid, if not fully detected, spread of the virus inside Louisiana facilities. Both medical experts and the CDC establish that individuals in confined spaces such as jails and detention centers are at grave risk of injury, and the risk is heightened for these medically vulnerable plaintiffs. Meyer Decl. ¶¶ 7-17. Contrary to Defendants’ conclusory assertions, the policies and practices within detention centers make the “rapid spread of COVID-19 very likely,” (ECF. Doc.
29 Committee on Oversight and Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, DHS Officials Refuse to Release Asylum Seekers and Other Non-Violent Detainees Despite Spread of Coronavirus (April 17, 2020) available at https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/dhs-officials-refuse-to-release-asylum-seekers-and-other-nonviolent-detainees. 30 Pls.’ Mot. Temp. Restraining Order at 18-20.
9

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 9 Filed 04/23/20 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 559
1. ¶¶ 103-113) and the outlandish claim that Plaintiffs would be safer in these infectious detention
hotspots instead of sheltering at home cannot be taken seriously.
Defendants’ asserted interest in enforcing U.S. immigration law is an insufficient
counterweight to the grave public health consequences; it cannot tilt the balance of equities in its
favor. First, Defendants already release from custody as a matter of course scores of immigrants— even those with criminal convictions—a practice that has not yet brought the system to its knees.31
Second, “ICE has a number of alternative tools available to it to ensure enforcement, which it is
free to use with Plaintiffs” including “ICE’s conditional supervision program.” Vazquez Berrera, 20-cv-1241, at 14.32
Finally, releasing Plaintiffs would be in the public interest because it promotes public
health and safety, considerations that weigh heavily in the movant’s favor. See Planned
Parenthood of Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Gee, 862 F.3d 445, 472 (5th Cir. 2017). As Judge Ellison
explained, “an outbreak among the . . . detainee population will inevitably spread through the
surrounding community, as MPC staff members, who live outside the detention facility, will be
exposed to sick detainees . . . [and] will put additional strain on hospitals and health care resources in the community.” Vasquez Berrera, 20-cv-1241, at 15.33
31 See Detainees Leaving ICE Detention from the El Paso Service Processing Center, TRAC https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/detention/201509/EPC/exit/ (“ICE also has discretionary authority to "parole" individuals . . . with serious medical conditions . . . and individuals whose parole is considered by ICE in the ‘public interest.’”); see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). 32 This alternative supervision program is highly effective, with a 99% attendance rate at all immigration court hearings and a 95% attendance rate at final hearings among supervised individuals. U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-15-26, Alternatives to Detention: Improved Data Collection and Analyses Needed to Better Assess Program Effectiveness 30 (Nov. 2014), https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666911.pdf. 33 On April 20, 2020, in Fraihat, et al. v. ICE, No. EDCV 19-1546 (attached as Exhibit 3), U.S. District Judge Jesus G. Bernal of the Central District of California certified a nationwide class of medically vulnerable individuals in ICE detention and ordered ICE to undertake new custody determinations for those individuals within the class. Plaintiffs are all members of that class. On April 22, undersigned counsel asked Defendants’ counsel what ICE’s plans are for the custody redeterminations regarding Plaintiffs and when they would be completed. Defendants’ counsel has relayed those inquiries onto ICE, but, as of the submission of this brief, there has been no answer.
10

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 9 Filed 04/23/20 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 560

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant the motion for a temporary restraining order and order their immediate release from custody. Dated: April 23, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Matthew S. Vogel Matthew S. Vogel, La. Bar No. 35363 matt@nipnlg.org Sirine Shebaya* sirine@nipnlg.org NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD 2201 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20007 718.419.5876
William P. Quigley, La Bar No. 07769 Quigley77@gmail.com LOYOLA LAW CLINIC 7214 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70118 504.710.3074
Andrew Free* Andrew@ImmigrantCivilRights.com LAW OFFICE OF R. ANDREW FREE P.O. Box 90568 Nashville, TN 37209 844.321.3221 x.1

Baher Azmy* bazmy@ccrjustice.org Ghita Schwarz* gschwarz@ccrjustice.org Angelo Guisado* aguisado@ccrjustice.org Lupe Aguirre* laguirre@ccrjustice.org Astha Sharma Pokharel* asharmapokharel@ccrjustice.org Aya Saed* asaed@ccrjustice.org Brittany Thomas* bthomas@ccrjustice.org CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 11201 212.614.6427
Jeremy Jong* jermjong@gmail.com 3527 Banks St, New Orleans, LA 70119 504.475.6728

*pro hac vice application forthcoming

Counsel for Petitioners-Plaintiffs

11

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 9 Filed 04/23/20 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 561

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on April 23, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing document and accompanying exhibits with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent to all counsel of record by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. I also certify that there are no non-CM/ECF participants to this action.

Dated: April 23, 2020

/s/ Matthew S. Vogel Matthew S. Vogel, La. Bar No. 35363 matt@nipnlg.org NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD 2201 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20007 718.419.5876

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 8 Filed 04/22/20 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 514

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

TATALU HELEN DADA, ET. AL. Petitioners

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-00458

VERSUS

JUDGE DRELL

DIANNE WITTE, in her official capacity As Interim New Orleans Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ET. AL. Respondents

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Respectfully submitted,
DAVID C. JOSEPH UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
By: s/ E. Henry Byrd, IV E. HENRY BYRD, IV (#37435) Assistant United States Attorney 300 Fannin Street, Suite 3201 Shreveport, Louisiana 71101-3068 (318) 676-3600 // Fax: (318) 676-3642 edwin.byrd@usdoj.gov

i

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 8 Filed 04/22/20 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 515
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................ ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.................................................................... 2
A. Factual Background.......................................................................................................... 2 B. Uniform Precautionary Measures Taken Against COVID-19 ......................................... 2 C. Petitioners’ Allegations .................................................................................................... 4 STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 6 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 7 I. Petitioners have not shown a “substantial likelihood of success on the merits” as required
to obtain a TRO that alters the status quo because this Court lacks jurisdiction over their claims .......................................................................................................................7 a. Petitioners are unlikely to succeed on the merits because they cannot invoke habeas to challenge the conditions of their confinement. .................................................................... 7 b. Petitioners are unlikely to succeed on the merits because they cannot demonstrate that ICE’s precautionary measures amount to deliberate indifference in violation of petitioners’ due process rights. ............................................................................................ 9 c. Petitioners are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their due right to counsel and Rehabilitation Act claims................................................................................................... 12 d. Petitioners are not likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief . 13 e. The balance of equities and the public interest in Respondents’ favor.............................. 14 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 15
ii

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 8 Filed 04/22/20 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 516
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Alexander v. Trump, 753 F. App’x 201, 206 (5th Cir. 2018) ......................................................................................... 15
Aransas Project v. Shaw, 775 F.3d 641, 648 (5th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................ 16
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979)................................................................................................................ 11, 13
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)...................................................................................................................... 15
Blackie’s House of Beef, Inc. v. Castillo, 659 F.2d 1211 (D.C. Cir. 1981) .................................................................................................... 17
Brandon Livas, et al. v. Rodney Myers, et. al., 2:20-cv-00422 (W.D. La. April 22, 2020) ...................................................................................... 9
Cook v. Hanberry, 596 F.2d 658 (5th Cir. 1979) .......................................................................................................... 8
Davidson v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 91 F. App’x 963 (5th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................... 13
Demore v.Kim, 538 U.S. 510 ................................................................................................................................. 14
Domino v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752 (5th Cir. 2001) ........................................................................................................ 12
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976)........................................................................................................................ 12
Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633 (5th Cir. 1996) .......................................................................................................... 11
Hearth, Inc. v. Dep’t of Public Welfare, 617 F.2d 381 (5th Cir. 1980) ........................................................................................................ 15
Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 ................................................................................................................................... 12
iii

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 8 Filed 04/22/20 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 517
Hernandez v. Garrison, 916 F.2d 291 (5th Cir. 1990) .......................................................................................................... 8
Holland Am. Ins. Co. v. Succession of Roy, 777 F.2d 992 (5th Cir. 1985) ........................................................................................................ 16
Hurley v. Gunnels, 41 F.3d 662 (5th Cir. 1994) .......................................................................................................... 16
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) .................................................................................................................... 14
Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2004) ........................................................................................................ 11
Jones v. Wolf, 2020 WL 1643857 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2020) ................................................................................. 8
Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan, 335 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2003) .......................................................................................................... 6
Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21 (1982)........................................................................................................................ 17
Miss. Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618 (5th Cir. 1985) .......................................................................................................... 6
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009)...................................................................................................................... 17
Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933 (5th Cir. 1976) ...................................................................................................... 7, 9
Poree v. Collins, 866 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2017) .......................................................................................................... 7
Rourke v. Thompson, 11 F.3d 47 (5th Cir. 1993................................................................................................................ 9
Rourke v. Thompson, 11 F.3d 47 (5th Cir. 1993) ........................................................................................................ 9, 13
Sacal-Micha v. Longoria, 1:20-cv-37, 2020 WL 1518861 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2020) .............................................. 10, 14, 15
iv

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 8 Filed 04/22/20 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 518
Sarres Mendoza v. Barr, 2019 WL 1227494 (S.D. Tex. 2019) .............................................................................................. 8 Schipke v. Van Buren, 239 F. App’x 85 (5th Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................................... 7 Sepulvado v. Jindal, 729 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2013) .......................................................................................................... 6 Shepherd v. Dallas Cty., 591 F.3d 445 (5th. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................. 11, 13 State of Texas v. Seatrain Inter. S.A., 518 F.2d 175 (5th Cir. 1975) .......................................................................................................... 7 Thompson v. Upshur County., Texas, 245 F.3d 447 (5th Cir. 2001) ........................................................................................................ 12 United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976)...................................................................................................................... 17 Voting for America, Inc. v. Steen, 732 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2013) .......................................................................................................... 6 Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008).......................................................................................................................... 15 Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982)...................................................................................................................... 18 Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)...................................................................................................................... 14
Statutes 8 U.S.C. § 1226............................................................................................................................... 1 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) ................................................................................................................ 1, 8, 9
v

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 8 Filed 04/22/20 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 519
Respondents respectfully file this response in opposition to Petitioners’ request for a Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Habeas Corpus.
INTRODUCTION Petitioners-Plaintiffs are fifteen (15) immigration detainees in various stages of immigration proceedings at various detention facilities located in the Western District of Louisiana.1 At least five (5) of the Petitioners are subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. 1226. Together they now file the instant Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Injunctive Relief (ECF Doc. 1) and Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) (ECF Doc. 2) seeking their immediate release from immigration detention based upon their collective concern that they will contract the COVID-19 virus while in ICE detention.2 Petitioners assert that, due to their ages and pre-existing medical conditions, they are at imminent risk of severe illness or death were they to become infected. (ECF Doc. 1, ¶ 6). They allege six claims for violations of: substantive and procedural due process rights; unlawful detention under the federal habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241; Fifth Amendment right to counsel and a fair hearing; the Administrative Procedure Act; and the Rehabilitation Act. (ECF. Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 189–229). Ultimately, Petitioners contend that their continued detention is unlawful under due process because their health cannot be protected in or by the faculties in which they are detained. As such, Petitioners seek immediate release from confinement because, according to Petitioners, there is no way for Petitioners to be detained in conditions that are constitutional.
1 One of the Petitioners, Eduardo Devora-Espinosa, was granted parole and released from ICE custody subsequent to the filing of Petitioners’ request for relief. See Gvmt. Ex. A, ¶ 34 (declaration of John Harnett, ICE Deputy Field Office Director, New Orleans Field Office). 2 Petitioners’ sought identical relief from the Eastern District of Louisiana but that Court ultimately dismissed their Petition for lack of jurisdiction because none of the Petitioners were detained in the Eastern District. See Dada, et al. v. Witte, et al., 20-cv-1093 2020 WL 1674129 (E.D. La. April 6, 2020).
1

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 8 Filed 04/22/20 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 520
Respondents respectfully oppose Petitioners’ motion for a mandatory temporary restraining order compelling their release from custody. As both the Fifth Circuit and the Western District of Louisiana recognize, Petitioners cannot challenge the conditions of their confinement through a writ of habeas corpus. Even if such a claim were available, Petitioners’ have not established, nor can they, that ICE is incapable of detaining Petitioners in a constitutional manner. Indeed, the detailed procedures in place at the ICE facilities for the screening, management, and treatment of detainees’ potential exposure to COVID-19 belies Petitioners’ assertions.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Factual Background Petitioners are a diverse group of ICE detainees that are being detained under a variety of different statutes in five different ICE housing facilities. See Gvmt. Ex. A., ¶¶ 23-38. Some are subject to mandatory detention based on criminal histories. Id. Some have final orders of removal that ICE is seeking to effectuate while others are in the process of appealing orders from various immigration courts. Id. Each of the fifteen Petitioners is currently in custody in one of five detention facilities located within the jurisdictional limits of the Western District of Louisiana. Id. ¶ 1. Those facilities are as follows: LaSalle ICE Processing Center (LIPC), Jena, Louisiana; the Richwood Correctional Center (Richwood), Monroe, Louisiana; the Winn Correctional Center (Winn), Winnfield, Louisiana, the Catahoula Correctional Center (Catahoula), Harrisonburg, Louisiana; the Jackson Parish Correctional Center (Jackson Parish), Jonesboro, Louisiana; and the Pine Prairie ICE Processing Center (PPIPC), Pine Prairie, Louisiana. Id. B. Uniform Precautionary Measures Taken Against COVID-19 In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, ICE has, consistent with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), implemented protocols to protect all detainees in its custody and
2

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 8 Filed 04/22/20 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 521
care. See Gvmt. Ex. B. ¶¶ 7-9. At the outset, ICE has temporarily suspended social visitation and all staff and vendors are screened before entering each facility. Id. ¶¶ 19-20. At intake, detainees are screened for fever and respiratory illness, are asked whether they have had close contact with a person who has tested positive for COVID-19, or whether they have traveled in an area with sustained community transmission. Id. ¶ 11. Those with symptoms compatible with COVID-19 are placed in isolation to await testing. Id. ¶ 12. If positive, they would remain isolated and treated and, if warranted, referred to a local hospital. Id. ¶ 13. If detainees were to be exposed to a person with confirmed COVID-19, asymptomatic detainees would be placed in cohorts with restricted movement for an incubation period and would be monitored for symptoms. Id. ¶ 12. Those with the onset of symptoms would be referred to a medical provider for evaluation. Id. With no new cases, cohorting would be discontinued after 14 days. Id. ¶ 13. The same cohort process would be followed if detainees came into contact with a suspected COVID-19 patient until testing revealed the index patient did not have COVID-19.Id. All facilities have identified housing units for the quarantine of patients who are suspected of or test positive for COVID-19. Id. ¶ 22. Field units have also been instructed to educate detainees on the importance of hand hygiene, covering coughs with elbows, and requesting assistance if they feel ill. Id. ¶¶ 17, 21.
As of 12:00 p.m. on April 22, 2020, the ICE Health Service Corps (IHSC) had the following information:
• There are three ICE detainees confirmed cases of COVID-19 in LIPC. The three confirmed cases are isolated in the Medical Housing Unit and receiving medical treatment consistent with CDC guidelines.
• There is one ICE detainee suspected case of COVID-19 in LIPC who is on medical observation per CDC guidelines. He is isolated from all other detainees and in the infirmary under daily evaluation.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 8 Filed 04/22/20 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 522

• There are seven ICE detainee confirmed cases of COVID-19 at PPIPC. They are isolated under medical observation and in negative pressure rooms when necessary.

• There is one ICE detainee suspected case of COVID-19 in PPIPC who is on medical observation per CDC guidelines. He is isolated from all other detainees and under daily medical observation.

• There was one ICE detainee confirmed case of COVID-19 in Catahoula, but that individual was isolated and transferred to Richwood.

• There were three ICE detainee suspected case of COVID-19 in Catahoula who were on medical observation per CDC guidelines. All three were isolated and tested, which came back negative.

• There are three ICE detainee confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Winn. The three confirmed cases are isolated in the negative pressure rooms and receiving medical treatment consistent with CDC guidelines.

• There is one ICE detainee suspected case of COVID-19 in Winn who is on medical observation per CDC guidelines.

• There are 29 ICE detainee confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Richwood. The cases are isolated when possible and receiving medical treatment consistent with CDC guidelines. Many of these positive cases were transferred from other facilities to Richwood. At all times, positive COVID-19 individuals have been separated from the other population.

• There are five ICE detainee suspected cases of COVID-19 in Richwood who are on medical observation per CDC guidelines.

Id. ¶ 15.

• There are currently no suspected or confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Jackson Parish.

C. Petitioners’ Allegations Petitioners allege that their detention, coupled with their various pre-existing medical conditions and co-morbidities increases their risk of COVID-19. See generally ECF Doc. 1. The range of alleged medical conditions is limited, with most Petitioners alleging depression, hypertension, diabetes, glaucoma, asthma, high cholesterol and heart disease. Id. ¶¶ 22-37. Two

4

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 8 Filed 04/22/20 Page 10 of 21 PageID #: 523
of the Petitioners, however, Suresh Kumar, a 37- year old Indian detainee, and Pardeep Kumar, a 27-year old Indian detainee, allege that their co-morbidities stem from severe malnutrition as a result of their participation in a hunger strike done in “peaceful protest of ICE and federal immigration policies”. Id. ¶¶ 30-31. Their already heightened risk of infection is magnified, according to Petitioners, by the conditions of their confinement which “make rapid spread of COVID-19 very likely.” (ECF. Doc. 1. ¶¶ 103-113). Such conditions include irregular cleaning (Id. ¶ 105), “minimal access to soap and sinks” (Id. ¶106), and the lack of “negative pressure isolation units” in Louisiana (Id. ¶ 110). Petitioners are also critical of ICE’s efforts to prevent the spread of COVID-19, which they argue are not aggressive enough. (Id. ¶ 128). Notwithstanding ICE’s efforts, Petitioners allege that it is “impossible for detention facilities to consistently and adequately screen detained individuals and staff for new, asymptomatic infection.” (Id. ¶ 128).
In further support of their petition and TRO, Petitioners submit three hundred and seventyseven (377) pages of literature, including declarations from themselves, various immigration attorneys (including their own), and healthcare professionals, all of which purport to portray the infectious nature of COVID-19, the heightened risk that the Petitioners face, and the inability of ICE to protect them from it. (ECF. Doc. 2-2, pgs. 101-478).3 Petitioners’ submissions also include a list of recent district court opinions throughout the country, none of which however originate within the Fifth Circuit. Id. at 273-478.
At bottom, Petitioners challenge the conditions of their confinement rather than its legality or duration.
3 Respondents note that many of the declarations represent unsubstantiated hearsay and should be assigned little, if any, weight in considering the merits of Petitioners’ motion.
5

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 8 Filed 04/22/20 Page 11 of 21 PageID #: 524
STANDARD OF REVIEW Under well-settled Fifth Circuit precedent, a temporary restraining order is an extraordinary remedy that should not be granted unless the movant establishes the following four elements by a preponderance of the evidence: “(1) there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) there is a substantial threat that irreparable injury will result if the injunction is not granted; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm to the defendant; and (4) granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest.” Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan, 335 F.3d 357, 363 (5th Cir. 2003). A TRO, like all injunctive relief, is an extraordinary remedy requiring the movant to unequivocally show the need for its issuance. Sepulvado v. Jindal, 729 F.3d 413, 417 (5th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1789 (2014) (internal citations and quotations omitted). The party moving for a TRO must carry the burden as to all four elements before a TRO may be considered. Cf. Voting for America, Inc. v. Steen, 732 F.3d 382, 386 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotations and citations omitted). A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy. Miss. Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985). It should only be granted if the movant has clearly carried the burden of persuasion on all four prerequisites. Id. The decision to grant a preliminary injunction is to be treated as the exception rather than the rule. Id. (citing State of Texas v. Seatrain Inter. S.A., 518 F.2d 175, 179 (5th Cir. 1975)).
6

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 8 Filed 04/22/20 Page 12 of 21 PageID #: 525
ARGUMENT I. Petitioners have not shown a “substantial likelihood of success on the merits” as
required to obtain a TRO that alters the status quo because this Court lacks jurisdiction over their claims
a. Petitioners are unlikely to succeed on the merits because they cannot invoke habeas to challenge the conditions of their confinement.
Petitioners invoke habeas corpus to challenge the constitutionality of their conditions of confinement and seek release. But habeas corpus is not a means by which to challenge conditions of confinement. The “sole function” of habeas is to “grant relief from unlawful imprisonment or custody and it cannot be used properly for any other purpose.” Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933, 935–36 (5th Cir. 1976).
The Fifth Circuit, and district courts within this Circuit, have long recognized that habeas corpus actions are the proper vehicle to “challenge the fact or duration of confinement,” whereas allegations that challenge an individual’s “conditions of confinement” are “properly brought in civil rights actions.” Schipke v. Van Buren, 239 F. App’x 85–86 (5th Cir. 2007); Poree v. Collins, 866 F.3d 235, 243 (5th Cir. 2017) (noting the “instructive principle [is] that challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are properly brought under habeas, while challenges to the conditions of confinement are properly brought under [civil rights actions]”) (citations omitted); Hernandez v. Garrison, 916 F.2d 291, 293 (5th Cir. 1990) (holding that claims of overcrowding, denial of medical treatment, and access to an adequate law library were not proper subjects of a habeas corpus petition); Sarres Mendoza v. Barr, 2019 WL 1227494, at *2 (S.D. Tex. 2019) (denying Honduran detainee’s motion for leave to amend because proposed claims concerning “conditions of confinement may not be brought in a habeas corpus proceeding, and are actionable, if at all, in a civil rights action”).
Although other district courts, exclusively outside this Circuit, have decided that they have
7

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 8 Filed 04/22/20 Page 13 of 21 PageID #: 526
the power to order release to cure allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement, the District Court for the Western District of New York recently highlighted that the Fifth Circuit disagrees. In a COVID-19 case, the court noted that “[c]ourts are divided on whether section 2241 provides a vehicle for challenging (and a remedy for addressing) allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement,” noting that the Fifth Circuit is among several circuits that affirmatively proscribe such a claim. Jones v. Wolf, 2020 WL 1643857, at *14 & n.11 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2020) (citing Cook v. Hanberry, 596 F.2d 658, 660 (5th Cir. 1979)).
The Fifth Circuit highlighted the key distinction in Rourke v. Thompson: a plaintiff “cannot avail himself of the writ of habeas corpus when seeking injunctive relief unrelated to the cause of his detention.” 11 F.3d 47, 49 (5th Cir. 1993) (citing Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933, 935 (5th Cir. 1976) (“Simply stated, habeas is not available to review questions unrelated to the cause of detention.”)) (emphasis added). Petitioners’ argument comes face to face with this admonition from the Fifth Circuit. Petitioners do not challenge the cause of their detention—rather, they expressly claim that their habeas challenge is to remedy “unlawful conditions of detention.” (ECF. Doc. 1 ¶ 200) (emphasis added). The Fifth Circuit has foreclosed this precise argument.
In a very recent opinion from this District, District Judge Terry Doughty correctly dismissed similar claims for immediate release brought under § 2241(a). Brandon Livas, et al. v. Rodney Myers, et. al., 2:20-cv-00422 (W.D. La. April 22, 2020). In Livas, Petitioners, federal inmates at Oakdale penitentiary filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus under § 2241(a), Injunctive, and Declaratory relief seeking their immediate release from detention in light of the COVID-19 presence there. Id. * 1. Specifically, Petitioners “[sought] to represent a class of all current and future people in post-conviction custody… including a subclass of persons who, by reason of age or medical condition, are particularly vulnerable to injury or death if they were to contract COVID-
8

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 8 Filed 04/22/20 Page 14 of 21 PageID #: 527
19.” Id. * 7. They alleged that due to the conditions present at Oakdale, it would be “virtually impossible” to mitigate the risk of infection of COVID-19 which violated their constitutional right to treatment and medical care. Id. Importantly, Petitioners did not challenge their classification or placement but sought release under § 2241 “because of the extraordinary conditions caused by COVID-19.” Id. * 15. The Federal Respondents argued in opposition that the habeas relief was not available under a challenge to conditions of confinement and thus the Court lacked jurisdiction. Id. * 16. The Court agreed, citing to the lack of any 5th Circuit or Supreme Court precedent permitting conditions of confinement claims under § 2241.
Similarly, U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez in the Southern District of Texas recently denied an immigrant detainee’s similarly styled habeas motion based on fear of potential COVID-19 exposure. See Sacal-Micha v. Longoria, #1:20-cv-37, 2020 WL 1518861 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2020). Sacal-Micha correctly found that allegations related to the inadequacy of COVID19 mitigation and avoidance measures “are part and parcel of the conditions in which the facility maintains custody over detainees.” Id. at *4. Surveying Fifth Circuit precedent, Sacal-Micha concluded that “[d]istrict courts have . . . den[ied] a habeas petition based solely on alleged inadequate conditions of incarceration.” Id. Therefore, even if this Court were inclined to find the existence of civil-rights violations in the petitioners’ conditions of confinement, release from custody under a § 2241(a) habeas writ wouldn’t be the appropriate remedy.
b. Petitioners are unlikely to succeed on the merits because they cannot demonstrate that ICE’s precautionary measures amount to deliberate indifference in violation of petitioners’ due process rights.
As petitioners are civil detainees, their conditions of confinement claims are, like pretrial detainees, governed by the due-process clause. See Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 638-639 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); see also Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2004) (evaluating
9

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 8 Filed 04/22/20 Page 15 of 21 PageID #: 528
conditions of confinement claim of civil detainee under Fifth Amendment). In Hare, the Fifth Circuit created two standards for conditions-of-confinement claims depending on the nature of the allegation. The court held “that the episodic act or omission of a state jail official does not violate a [civil] detainee’s due process right to medical care . . . unless the official acted or failed to act with subjective deliberate indifference.”
Alternatively, “[c]onstitutional attacks on general conditions, practices, rules, or restrictions of pretrial confinement,” or “jail condition cases,” are governed by the reasonable relation test articulated in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979). The Supreme Court held in Bell that so long as the challenged condition is “reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective” it passes constitutional muster. Id. at 539. “[I]solated examples of illness, injury, or death, standing alone, cannot prove that conditions of confinement are constitutionally adequate. Nor can the incidence of diseases or infections, standing alone, . . . since any densely populated residence may be subject to outbreaks.” Shepherd v. Dallas Cty., 591 F.3d 445, 454 (5th. Cir. 2009). A detainee does not establish a case simply by alleging that the detention center has disease or infection present. “Rather, a detainee . . . must demonstrate a pervasive pattern of serious deficiencies in providing for his basic human needs.” Id. Petitioners do not choose a theory and instead seem to allege both simultaneously.
In defining the deliberate-indifference standard, the Supreme Court clarified in Helling v. McKinney that while “accidental or inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care to a prisoner would not violate the [constitution], ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners’ violates the [constitution] because it constitutes the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain contrary to contemporary standards of decency.” 509 U.S. 25, 32 (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976).
10

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 8 Filed 04/22/20 Page 16 of 21 PageID #: 529
“Deliberate indifference is an extremely high standard.” Domino v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001). “Deliberate indifference in the context of failure to provide reasonable medical care means that: (1) the prison officials were aware of facts from which an inference of substantial risk of serious harm could be drawn; (2) the officials actually drew that inference; and (3) the officials’ response indicated that they subjectively intended that harm occur.” Thompson v. Upshur County., Texas, 245 F.3d 447, 458–59 (5th Cir. 2001). A prisoner claiming deliberate indifference must allege that government officials “refused to treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly, or engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard for any serious medical needs.” Davidson v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 91 F. App’x 963, 965 (5th Cir. 2004). Further, “deliberate indifference cannot be inferred merely from a negligent or even a grossly negligent response to a substantial risk of serious harm.” See Thompson, 245 F.3d at 459–60.
But Petitioners’ allegations do not support either a “pervasive pattern of serious deficiencies in providing for basic human needs” or a “wanton disregard for serious medical needs.” Petitioners do not allege that Respondents have failed to provide them with any medical care they may require. Rather, their allegations focus on the fact that they are detained with others in typical detention-facility conditions and cannot exercise social distancing. But, as the Fifth Circuit has noted, “any densely populated residence may be subject to outbreaks,” and the existence of a disease does not state a constitutional violation. Shepherd, 591 F.3d at 454.
Should Petitioners’ claims be characterized as a jail-condition case governed by Bell, they still fail as detention is reasonably related to the Government’s legitimate interest in pre-order detention of aliens to prevent absconding and, in the cases of criminal aliens, to protect the community. In the immigration context, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the
11

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 8 Filed 04/22/20 Page 17 of 21 PageID #: 530
constitutionality of detention, citing the Government’s legitimate interest in protecting the public and preventing aliens from absconding into the United States and never appearing for their removal proceedings. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830, 836 (2018); Demore v.Kim , 538 U.S. 510, 520–22; Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690–91 (2001). Nor is detention pending removal an excessive means of achieving those interests. The Supreme Court for over a century has affirmed detention as a “constitutionally valid aspect of the deportation process.” Demore, 538 U.S. at 523 (listing cases).
ICE has taken steps to reduce the risk that COVID-19 will be introduced into the five facilities by screening all necessary visitors and has taken steps to reduce a potential spread by isolating those who may have been exposed or who are showing potential COVID-19 symptoms. Additionally, all COVID-19 positive detainees are isolated and treated consistent with CDC guidelines. While the methods implemented by ICE are admittedly not perfect, they are not so wanton so as to constitute deliberate indifference to the medical needs of its detainees. On these facts, Petitioners cannot show a constitutional violation. See Sacal-Micha, 2020 WL 1815691, at *6. (“But ultimately, Sacal does not assert that Respondents are doing nothing to protect him, other detainees, and staff members from COVID-19, but only that Respondents are not doing enough. . . . Courts have refused to provide habeas relief even when the claimed inadequacies allegedly placed the petitioner in grave peril.”).
c. Petitioners are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their due right to counsel and Rehabilitation Act claims
To the extent Petitioners bring additional direct constitutional claims, they have not demonstrated that they may do so in the Fifth Circuit. “Although there have been a few exceptions, the federal courts, and this Circuit in particular, have been hesitant to find causes of action arising directly from the Constitution.” Alexander v. Trump, 753 F. App’x 201, 206 (5th Cir. 2018)
12

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 8 Filed 04/22/20 Page 18 of 21 PageID #: 531
(rejecting a freestanding constitutional complaint against the FBI). See also Hearth, Inc. v. Dep’t of Public Welfare, 617 F.2d 381, 382 (5th Cir. 1980) (citing Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), as one “notable exception” to the general rule). Recognizing a cause of action directly under the Fifth Amendment to order Petitioners release would be a departure from Fifth Circuit precedent. See Sacal-Micha, 2020 WL 1815691, at *5–6.
d. Petitioners are not likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief
The Supreme Court’s “frequently reiterated standard requires plaintiffs seeking preliminary relief to demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008) (emphasis in original). “To seek injunctive relief, the plaintiff must show a real and immediate threat of future or continuing injury apart from any past injury.” Aransas Project v. Shaw, 775 F.3d 641, 648 (5th Cir. 2014). “Speculative injury is not sufficient; there must be more than an unfounded fear on the part of the applicant.” Hurley v. Gunnels, 41 F.3d 662 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Holland Am. Ins. Co. v. Succession of Roy, 777 F.2d 992, 997 (5th Cir. 1985)).
Petitioners argue that only release from the detention will dissolve the heightened risk of adverse consequences from COVID-19 due to their health issues. These assertions are wholly speculative. Petitioners do not explain how they will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an order requiring their release, given that their existing medical care would be interrupted if it ended as a consequence of their combined releases.
13

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 8 Filed 04/22/20 Page 19 of 21 PageID #: 532
While Petitioners allege that they all have housing arrangements should they be released, all of the suggested locations require interstate travel.4 (ECF. Doc. 1 ¶¶ 22-37). Moreover, it cannot be overlooked that each above referenced detention facility provides medical care at no cost to detainees, including Petitioners. By reason of their detention, they have greater access to medical care than many in the general public. Ordering their release would leave Petitioners without their present access to health care and could put some or all of them at greater risk of serious complications in the event that they contract COVID-19. As stated above, Petitioners’ position is based entirely on their fear of exposure to COVID-19.
e. The balance of equities and the public interest in Respondents’ favor It is well-settled that the public interest in enforcement of United States immigration laws is significant. Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 34 (1982) (“The government’s interest in efficient administration of the immigration laws at the border is also weighty.”); United States v. MartinezFuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 556-58 (1976); Blackie’s House of Beef, Inc. v. Castillo, 659 F.2d 1211, 1221 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“The Supreme Court has recognized that the public interest in enforcement of the immigration laws is significant.”); see also Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009) (“There is always a public interest in prompt execution of removal orders: The continued presence of an alien lawfully deemed removable undermines the streamlined removal proceedings IIRIRA established, and permit[s] and prolong[s] a continuing violation of United States law.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Concerns about exposure to COVID-19 is, of course, shared by all. However, an order directing ICE to release Petitioners into the United States—especially considering that half of the
4 The locations where Petitioners contend that that they will live upon release range from New York City to Washington State.
14

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 8 Filed 04/22/20 Page 20 of 21 PageID #: 533
Petitioners have criminal histories, see Gvmt. Ex. A, ¶¶ 22-40—is clearly contrary to the safety of the American public. Given the vast expanse and indiscriminate nature of Petitioners’ requested order, the balance of interests clearly favors Respondents especially considering some of Petitioners’ criminal convictions and status of immigration proceedings. The disruptive effect of such an order would long survive the COVID-19 pandemic, and would serve to release many aliens slated for removal back into the general public. Moreover, the public interest is best served by allowing orderly medical processes and protocols to be implemented by government professionals (which again, include the same type of medical experts represented in Petitioners’ papers). See Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 322-23 (1982) (urging judicial deference and finding presumption of validity regarding decisions of medical professionals concerning conditions of confinement). This type of burden and attendant harm, and its potential impact on ICE operations nationwide, is too great to be permissible at this preliminary stage. The public interest is further served by allowing “ICE [to] continue to review its ‘at risk population’ in the days and weeks ahead [and] deciding whether any detainees should be released from custody. Gvmt. Ex. A, ¶ 42.
CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, Respondents respectfully request that the Court deny Petitioners’ TRO motion seeking their immediate release from custody.5
Respectfully submitted, DAVID C. JOSEPH UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: s/ E. Henry Byrd, IV E. HENRY BYRD, IV (#37435)
5 If the Court is inclined to exercise jurisdiction, find for petitioners on the merits, and order an immediate release, respondents request that the Court order petitioners to comply with applicable national, state, and local guidance to stay at home, shelter in place, and practice social distancing. Likewise, the Court should also order that, until returned to ICE detention, the petitioners be placed on home detention given that the individual was originally detained based on criminal history, flight risk, or pending deportation. See Gvmt. Ex. A, at ¶¶ 23-38.
15

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 8 Filed 04/22/20 Page 21 of 21 PageID #: 534 Assistant United States Attorney 300 Fannin Street, Suite 3201 Shreveport, Louisiana 71101-3068 (318) 676-3600 // Fax: (318) 676-3642 edwin.byrd@usdoj.gov
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 22, 2020, a copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent to all counsel of record by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. I also certify that there are no non-CM/ECF participants to this action.
s/E. Henry Byrd, IV E. Henry Byrd, IV (#37435) Assistant United States Attorney
16

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 1 of 60 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TATALU HELEN DADA MATILDE FLORES DE SAAVEDRA ROSABEL CARRERA SONIA LEMUS TEJADA DEJASO GRISELDA DEL BOSQUE NADIRA SAMPATH GRANT PARDEEP KUMAR SURESH KUMAR HASAN SALEH LaSalle ICE Processing Center 830 Pine Hill Road Jena, LA 71342;
ABRAHAM GEBREMEDHIN GEBREMICHAEL Richwood Correctional Center 180 Pine Bayou Circle Monroe, Louisiana 71202;
SIROUS ASGARI EDUARDO DEVORA ESPINOSA Winn Correctional Center 560 Gum Springs Road Winnfield, LA 71483;
ROLANDO ALEX COLON KARTHIKEYAN PONNUSAMY Catahoula Correctional Center 499 Old Columbia Road Harrisonburg, LA 71340;
ARACELIO RODRIGUEZ Jackson Parish Correctional Center 327 Industrial Drive Jonesboro, LA 71251
DESMOND NKOBENEI Pine Prairie ICE Processing Center 1133 Hampton Dupre Road Pine Prairie, LA 70576,
Petitioners-Plaintiffs,

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
Civil Action No. ________________

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 2 of 60 PageID #: 2
v.
DIANNE WITTE, in her official capacity as Interim New Orleans Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 1250 Poydras, Suite 325 New Orleans, LA 70113;
MATTHEW T. ALBENCE, in his official capacity as Deputy Director and Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 500 12th St., S.W. Washington, DC 20536;
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 500 12th St., S.W. Washington, DC 20536;
STEVEN DEBELLEVUE, in his official capacity as Warden, Richwood Correctional Center 180 Pine Bayou Circle Richwood, Louisiana 71202;
DAVID COLE, in his official capacity as Warden, LaSalle ICE Processing Center 830 Pine Hill Road Jena, LA 71342;
KEITH DEVILLE, in his official capacity as Warden, Winn Correctional Center 560 Gum Springs Road Winnfield, LA 71483;
PAT BOOK, in his official capacity as Warden, Catahoula Correctional Center 499 Old Columbia Road Harrisonburg, LA 71340;
TIM DUCOTE, in his official capacity as

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 3 of 60 PageID #: 3

Warden, Jackson Parish Correctional Center 327 Industrial Drive Jonesboro, LA 71251;

ERIC STAIGER, in his official capacity as Warden, Pine Prairie ICE Processing Center 1133 Hampton Dupre Road Pine Prairie, LA 70576,

Respondents-Defendants.

Sirine Shebaya* sirine@nipnlg.org Matthew S. Vogel, La. Bar No. 35363** matt@nipnlg.org NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD 2201 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20007 718.419.5876
Andrew Free* Andrew@ImmigrantCivilRights.com LAW OFFICE OF R. ANDREW FREE P.O. Box 90568 Nashville, TN 37209 844.321.3221 x.1
Jeremy Jong* jermjong@gmail.com 3527 Banks Street New Orleans, LA 70119 504.475.6728

William P. Quigley, La Bar No. 07769 Quigley77@gmail.com LOYOLA LAW CLINIC 7214 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70118 504.710.3074
Baher Azmy* bazmy@ccrjustice.org Ghita Schwarz* gschwarz@ccrjustice.org Angelo Guisado* aguisado@ccrjustice.org Guadalupe V. Aguirre* laguirre@ccrjustice.org Astha Sharma Pokharel* asharmapokharel@ccrjustice.org Brittany Thomas* bthomas@ccrjustice.org CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 11201 212.614.6427

Counsel for Petitioner-Plaintiffs *pro hac vice applications forthcoming ** admission application pending

April 13, 2020

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 4 of 60 PageID #: 4
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
INTRODUCTION 1. This case presents a request for immediate relief on behalf of sixteen PetitionerPlaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”), who are highly vulnerable to serious injury or death if they contract COVID-19, the lethal disease that is sweeping the globe. Respondent-Defendants (“Defendants”) are holding Plaintiffs in civil immigration detention in the Richwood Correctional Center, in Richwood, Louisiana, the LaSalle ICE Processing Center in Jena, Louisiana, the Winn Correctional Center in Winnfield, Louisiana, the Catahoula Correctional Center in Harrisonburg, Louisiana, the Jackson Parish Correctional Center in Jonesboro, Louisiana, and the Pine Prairie ICE Processing Center in Pine Prairie, Louisiana, all facilities within the New Orleans ICE Field Office area of responsibility. Louisiana has seen an especially grave outbreak of the coronavirus, which feeds on precisely the unsafe, congregate conditions in which Plaintiffs are being held. As of April 13, 2020, Pine Prairie now has two confirmed COVID-19 cases, and both Winn and Richwood each have one as well. At least 11 staff members and 6 detained persons have so far tested positive for COVID-19 at Louisiana ICE facilities.1 Plaintiffs are therefore at imminent risk of contracting the lethal COVID-19 disease. 2. The risks and consequences of COVID-19 cannot be overstated. COVID-19 has reached global pandemic status. As of April 13, 2020, over 1,773,000 individuals worldwide have confirmed diagnoses, including more than 524,500 in the United States.2 More than 111,650 individuals worldwide have died as a result of COVID-19, including over 20,400 in the United
1 ICE COVID-19 Guidance, https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus (Apr. 8, 2020). 2 World Health Org., Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report – 84, Apr. 13, 2020, available at https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200413-sitrep-84-covid19.pdf?sfvrsn=44f511ab_2.

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 5 of 60 PageID #: 5
States.3 Those numbers are growing exponentially, with almost 76,500 new cases worldwide in the past day alone.4 By the time the Court reads this complaint, there will be more confirmed cases, and more death, with no end in sight.
3. As of April 13, 2020, there were nearly 21,100 COVID-19 cases in Louisiana.5 The number of infected people is rising exponentially. More than 880 people in Louisiana have died from the disease.6 Every parish in Louisiana has now reported confirmed COVID-19 cases.7
4. These data include all the counties where the detention centers are located. Ouachita Parish, home to Richwood Correctional Center, has 384 cases and five reported deaths. LaSalle Parish, where the LaSalle ICE Processing Center is located, has 13 cases. Winn Parish, the site of Winn Correctional Center, has 12 cases and 2 deaths.8 Catahoula Parish, the site of Catahoula Correctional Center, has 21 cases, and one reported death.9 Jackson Parish, the site of Jackson Parish Correctional Center, has eight cases.10 Evangeline Parish, the site of Pine Prairie ICE Processing Center, has 38 confirmed cases.11 These numbers are rising exponentially, and are likely an underestimate given the difficulty of testing asymptomatic people and the lack of widespread testing across the United States generally.
5. The exponential growth of coronavirus cases in Louisiana has been staggering. Data released March 21, 2020 show that Louisiana presently has the fastest spread of COVID-10
3 Id. 4 Id. 5 Louisiana Department of Health, Coronavirus (COVID-19) (Apr. 13, 2020), http://ldh.la.gov/coronavirus/. 6 Id. 7 Id. 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 Id.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 6 of 60 PageID #: 6
of any region in the world.12 Statewide, Louisiana is second only to New York in deaths per 100,000, with 582 reported as of April 7.13 Six parishes in the New Orleans area are in the top ten in deaths of all counties in the nation.14 Immediate relief is necessary before the coronavirus ignites across the immigration detention facilities in Louisiana.
6. Plaintiffs fear for their lives because they have medical conditions which make them vulnerable to serious injury or death should they be infected with COVID-19. And for good reason: they are trapped in facilities which can only be described as breeding grounds for the disease. Despite warnings and pleas for release from public health experts and advocates, Defendants have chosen to continue to confine Plaintiffs in close proximity, without adequate soap and/or hand sanitizer; to admit and transfer individuals without COVID-19 testing or screening; to refuse to implement cleaning and protection procedures adequate to combat COVID-19; and to resist releasing even the most medically vulnerable individuals. The conditions and treatment at these facilities have created a dangerous situation that threatens their lives, as well as the wellbeing of staff, others in the surrounding community, and the general public.
7. There is no known treatment for or vaccine against COVID-19, and there is no known cure. The only known effective measures to reduce the risk of COVID-19 are to prevent
12 Louisiana Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, COVID-19 Louisiana Case Info, 2 (Mar. 21, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/docs/covid/govCV19Brief-2.pdf; see also Katy Reckdahl, et al., New Orleans Faces a Virus Nightmare and Mardi Gras May Be Why, N.Y. Times, Mar. 26, 2020, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/us/coronavirus-louisiana-new-orleans.html.
13 Coronavirus tracker, The Washington Post, April 8, 2020, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/national/coronavirus-us-cases-deaths/; Emma Discher, Coronavirus in Louisiana: Cases, deaths increase; number of patients on ventilators drops, The New Orleans Advocate, April 7, 2020, available at https://www.nola.com/news/coronavirus/article_139dd82a-78ec-11ea-b8c4-5f458d197eab.html.
14 Scott Calvert, New Orleans Area Has Worst Coronavirus Death Rate in U.S., The Wall Street Journal, April 4, 2020, available at https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-orleans-area-has-worst-coronavirus-death-rate-in-u-s11586008800; Kimberly Curth, New Orleans and Jefferson Parish have the Highest COVID-19 Death Rates in the Country, FOX8, Mar. 28, 2020, available at https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/new-orleans-and-jeffersonparish-have-the-highest-covid-19-death-rates-in-the-country/ar-BB11Ownx.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 7 of 60 PageID #: 7
infection through social distancing and vigilant hygiene. Yet “social distancing” is a meaningless term in these detention centers, where detainees are in constant close contact with each other and with facility staff. Increased and vigilant hygiene is similarly unavailable under the conditions at these facilities.
8. Several recent federal court rulings ordering release have explained the health risks—to those who are detained, staff, and the outside community at large—created by large prison and detention populations. See, e.g., Jimenez v. Wolf, No. 18-10225-MLW (D. Mass. Mar. 26, 2020) (ordering release of detained immigrant in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and noting that “being in a jail enhances risk” and that in jail “social distancing is difficult or impossible”); Basank v. Decker, No. 1:20-cv-02518-AT (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2020) (ordering the release of ten people from three immigration detention facilities in New Jersey because “confining vulnerable individuals . . . without enforcement of appropriate social distancing and without specific measures to protect their delicate health ‘pose[s] an unreasonable risk of serious damage to [their] future health’”) (internal citation omitted); Thakker v. Doll, No. 1:20-cv-00480-JEJ (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2020) (ordering release of 13 people from three immigration detention facilities in Pennsylvania because “preventative measures” against the “grave risk” of COVID-19 cannot be practiced in “tightly confined, unhygienic spaces”); Fraihat v. Wolf, ED CV 20-00590 TJH (KSx) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2020) (ordering release of individual from immigration detention facility because COVID-19 “can spread uncontrollably with devastating results in a crowded, closed facility”); In the Matter of the Extradition of Alejandro Toledo Manrique, No. 19-mj-71055, 2020 WL 1307109, at *1 (N. D. Cal. March 19, 2020) (ordering change to conditions of bail for an individual to postpone incarceration, in part in light of risk of vulnerability to the coronavirus)
4

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 8 of 60 PageID #: 8
United States v. Barkman, No. 3:19-cr-0052-RCJ-WGC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45628 (D. Nev. Mar. 17, 2020).
9. Recognizing the urgency of this situation, judges, prosecutors and correctional authorities across the country have been ordering releases to protect individuals and the public health. Law enforcement officials in New Orleans, Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, Oakland, New Jersey, Cleveland, Nashville, Houston, San Antonio, Charlotte, and numerous other jurisdictions are releasing thousands of individuals in both civil and criminal detention and incarceration, because of the threat COVID-19 poses inside jails, prisons, and detention centers. On March 22 the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a consent order for the presumptive release of approximately 1,000 persons by March 26. On April 2, 2020, the Chief Justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court offered guidance on reducing the jail population, encouraging district court judges to release detained persons because a coronavirus outbreak in jails and prisons would be “catastrophic for jail staff, the families of jail staff, and inmates.”15
10. Such releases not only protect the people with the greatest vulnerability to serious illness and death from COVID-19, they also protect all those in custody or working in a prison, jail, or detention center, and reduce the burden on the surrounding region’s health care infrastructure, as they lessen the likelihood that an overwhelming number of people will become seriously ill from COVID-19 at the same time. This is particularly significant here, as the rural communities in Louisiana has very limited health care infrastructure.
15 Chief Justice Bernette Joshua Johnson, Letter To the Louisiana District Judges, April 2, 2020, available at ttps://www.lasc.org/COVID19/2020-04-02-LASC-ChiefLetterReCOVID-19andjailpopulation.pdf; see also Javonti Thomas, Louisiana Chief Justice calls for reduced jail populations to combat COVID-19 outbreak, KALB, April 3, 2020, available at https://www.kalb.com/content/news/Louisiana-Chief-Justice-calls-for-reduced-jail-populationsto-avoid-COVID-19-outbreak--569348241.html.
5

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 9 of 60 PageID #: 9
11. By contrast, Defendants’ response to the threats the pandemic poses to immigrants has been abysmal and haphazard. Following public outcry, on March 17, 2020, ICE issued a statement that it would modify its enforcement efforts in apparent recognition of the need for alternatives to detention to protect public health.
12. Yet in litigation across the country, ICE has repeatedly called the threat of coronavirus spread in detention centers merely “speculative.” See Thacker v. Doll, No. 1:20-cv480-JEJ at 5-6 (M.D. Pa. March 31, 2020). ICE’s head-in-the-sand response to the threats of this pandemic will prove deadly to Plaintiffs if it is not remedied through this Court’s intervention.
13. On March 19, 2020, two medical experts for the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties sent a whistleblower letter to Congress, to highlight “the need to implement immediate social distancing to reduce the likelihood of exposure to detainees, facility personnel, and the general public,” and arguing that “it is essential to consider releasing all detainees who do not pose an immediate risk to public safety.”16 On multiple occasions since at least February 25, 2020, these experts had sounded the alarm within the agency about the impending risks to the health of those in immigration detention and the public at large unless swift mitigation measures, including releasing persons in immigration detention, are taken.
14. Inside the facilities at issue here, Defendants are not consistently adhering to the measures ICE claims it is taking. For example, Defendants are bringing new individuals into the detention centers without any screening, testing, or mandatory quarantine period, and continue to transfer individuals between detention centers without such protective measures.
16 Letter from Scott A. Allen, MD and Josiah Rich, MD, MPH to Congressional Committee Chairpersons, dated Mar. 19, 2020, available at https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6816336/032020-Letter-From-Drs-AllenRich-to-Congress-Re.pdf (emphasis in original).
6

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 10 of 60 PageID #: 10
15. This echoes a concern of the two DHS medical experts, who say that “the track record of ICE facilities implementing [early screening, testing, isolation and quarantine] protocols historically has been inconsistent.” Moreover, even if ICE was consistently taking these precautions, the DHS experts have explained that they will not be enough without rapidly releas[ing] those who do not pose an immediate danger to public safety. Defendants stubbornly refuse to heed the advice of public health experts, including their own. As Judge John E. Jones, III, sitting in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, said in terms equally applicable to the Louisiana detention facilities, “it is not a matter of if COVID-19 will enter Pennsylvania prisons, but when it is finally detected therein.” Thakker v. Doll, No. 1:20-CV00480 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2020) at 8 (emphasis in original).
16. Plaintiffs, who cannot be subject to any form of punitive detention, are at risk of serious injury and death because of Defendants’ flawed choices and the conditions in their detention facilities. Defendants’ failure to follow public health guidance endangers the lives of those they have chosen to detain. The only way to effectively slow down the spread of the coronavirus and to protect Plaintiffs and others from the risks posed by COVID-19 infection is to immediately release Plaintiffs, so that they can actually adhere to the guidance from public health experts and take the necessary steps to protect themselves.
17. Defendants cannot justify continuing to subject Plaintiffs to extraordinary risk of illness and death with any legitimate government objective, particularly in light of the alternatives available to them to supervise Plaintiffs. The danger posed by Plaintiffs’ detention during the current outbreak of COVID-19 is “so grave that it violates contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone unwillingly to such a risk” and violates their constitutional right to safety in government custody. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 36 (1993) (emphasis in original).
7

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 11 of 60 PageID #: 11
Plaintiffs bring this action to remedy grave violations of their constitutional rights that imminently threaten them with serious illness and death.
18. Unless this Court intervenes to order the release of the Plaintiffs, they, along with many other detained individuals and entire communities, will face dramatically increased chances of contracting COVID-19, becoming seriously ill, and dying.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 19. This action arises under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. 20. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (habeas corpus), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 5 U.S.C. § 702 (waiver of sovereign immunity), 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (original jurisdiction), and Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the United States Constitution (the Suspension Clause). 21. Venue is proper in the Western District of Louisiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (e). All sixteen Petitioner-Plaintiffs in this matter are detained in facilities in the Western District of Louisiana.
PARTIES Petitioner-Plaintiffs17
22. Petitioner-Plaintiff Tatalu Helen Dada is a 40-year-old woman and Nigerian national, who is currently detained by ICE at the LaSalle ICE Processing Center in Jena, Louisiana. In addition to depression and anxiety, Ms. Dada suffers from Grave’s Disease, which is a serious
17 Several Petitioner-Plaintiffs in this action filed a prior case in the Eastern District of Louisiana, which was dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. See Dada, et al. v. Witte, et al., No. 2:20-cv-01093-GGG-KWR (E.D. La. Apr. 6, 2020). Consequently, Petitioners are refiling this action in the Western District of Louisiana.
8

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 12 of 60 PageID #: 12
autoimmune disorder that attacks the thyroid; she suffers from hypothyroidism, hypertension, asthma, malnutrition, and vision loss, and has been hospitalized numerous times due to her rapidly deteriorating health. She is therefore at extremely high risk of severe complications or death if she contracts COVID-19. If released, she will reside with her sister in Ruston, Louisiana.
23. Petitioner-Plaintiff Matilde Flores de Saavedra is a 78-year-old woman and Mexican national, who is currently detained by ICE at the LaSalle ICE Processing Center in Jena, Louisiana. She was recently diagnosed with diabetes, which remains uncontrolled and subjects her to extremely high blood-sugar levels; she also suffers from hypertension. She is therefore at high risk of severe illness or death if she contracts COVID-19. If released, she will reside with her son in Falfurrias, Texas.
24. Petitioner-Plaintiff Sirous Asgari is a 59-year-old man and Iranian national who is currently detained at the Winn Correctional Center in Winnfield, Louisiana. He suffers from a chronic lung condition that leaves him susceptible to pneumonia and other infections, as well as hypertension and Grade 2 fatty liver disease. While detained by ICE he has suffered from influenza and pneumonia, as well as fainting from extremely high blood pressure. He is therefore at high risk of severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. If released, he will reside with his daughter in Redwood City, California.
25. Petitioner-Plaintiff Eduardo Devora Espinosa is a 34-year-old man and Cuban national who is currently detained at the Winn Correctional Center in Winnfield, Louisiana. He suffers from hypertension and diabetes. He is therefore at high risk of severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. If released, he will reside with his cousin in Mount Pleasant, Texas.
26. Petitioner-Plaintiff Rosabel Carrera is a 59-year-old woman and Mexican national and is currently detained by ICE at the LaSalle ICE Processing Center in Jena, Louisiana. She
9

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 13 of 60 PageID #: 13
suffers from diabetes, which is not under control, and takes both oral medication and insulin for her condition. She also has a history of stroke and suffers from heart disease, hypertension, arthritis, and vision loss. She is therefore at high risk of severe illness or death if she contracts COVID-19. If released, she will reside with her son in White Bluff, Tennessee.
27. Petitioner-Plaintiff Sonia Lemus Tejada Dejaso is a 53-year-old woman and Guatemalan national who is currently detained by ICE at the LaSalle ICE Processing Center in Jena, Louisiana. She suffers from heart disease and hypertension and has a history of hospitalization. She is therefore at high risk of severe illness or death if she contracts COVID-19. If released, she will reside with her son in Edinburg, Texas.
28. Petitioner-Plaintiff Griselda Del Bosque is a 57-year-old woman and Mexican national who is currently detained by ICE at the LaSalle ICE Processing Center in Jena, Louisiana. She suffers from severe asthma, requires the use of an inhaler, and has had numerous asthma attacks and coughing fits while she has been detained. She also suffers from glaucoma and chronic arm, back, and knee pain, that make it hard for her to walk. She is therefore at high risk of severe illness or death if she contracts COVID-19. If released, she will reside with her daughter in Dallas, Texas.
29. Petitioner-Plaintiff Nadira Sampath Grant is a 53-year-old woman and national of Trinidad and Tobago who is currently detained by ICE at the LaSalle ICE Processing Center in Jena, Louisiana. She suffers from diabetes and diabetic related complications such as neuropathy and issues with her kidneys and vision. She relies on oral medication for her diabetic care. She is therefore at high risk of severe illness or death if she contracts COVID-19. If released, she will reside with her husband and son in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
10

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 14 of 60 PageID #: 14
30. Petitioner-Plaintiff Suresh Kumar is a 37-year-old man and Indian national who is currently detained by ICE at the LaSalle ICE Processing Center in Jena, Louisiana. Since November 2019, Mr. Kumar has participated in a hunger strike in peaceful protest of ICE and federal immigration policies. As a result, Mr. Kumar has lost close to 40 pounds and had to be hospitalized in January 2020. ICE is currently painfully force-feeding Mr. Kumar liquid nutrients through a large tube that runs through his nose and into his esophagus. He is so weakened he requires the use of a wheelchair. He suffers from Hepatitis C, a chronic liver infection, malnutrition, and chronic pain to his chest, head, stomach, throat, and lower back. He is therefore at high risk of severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. If released, he will reside with his brother-in-law in Grants Pass, Oregon.
31. Petitioner-Plaintiff Pardeep Kumar is a 28-year-old man and Indian national who is currently detained by ICE at the LaSalle ICE Processing Center in Jena, Louisiana. He also has participated in a hunger strike for close to four months and has lost 24 pounds. He had to be hospitalized on March 20, 2020 due to significant chest pains. He is severely malnourished, which puts him at high risk for heart damage, as well as a kidney infection, chronic pain, and vision loss; he is so weakened he requires the use of a wheelchair. He is therefore at high risk of severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. If released, he will reside with his uncle in Kent, Washington.
32. Petitioner-Plaintiff Abraham Gebremedhin Gebremichael is a 33-year-old man and Ethiopian national who is currently detained by ICE at the Richwood Correctional Center in Richwood, Louisiana. He suffers bradycardia, a heart condition that leaves his body without sufficient oxygen. He is therefore at high risk of severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. If released, he will reside with his cousin in Houston, Texas.
11

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 15 of 60 PageID #: 15
33. Petitioner-Plaintiff Rolando Alex Colon is a 47-year-old man and Honduran national who is currently detained by ICE at the Catahoula Correctional Center in Harrisonburg, Louisiana. He suffers from hypertension and high cholesterol. He is therefore at high risk of severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. If released, he will reside with his sister in New York, New York.
34. Petitioner-Plaintiff Karthikeyan Ponnusamy is a 42-year-old man and Indian national who is currently detained by ICE at the Catahoula Correctional Center in Harrisonburg, Louisiana. He suffers from hypertension, diabetes, and Low Lactate Dehydrogenase . He is therefore at high risk of severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. If released, he will reside at his home in Austin, Texas.
35. Petitioner-Plaintiff Hasan Saleh is a 62-year-old man and Jordanian national who is currently detained by ICE at LaSalle ICE Processing Center, in Jena, Louisiana. He suffers from diabetes, hypertension, and high cholesterol. Due to his age and medical conditions, he is at high risk of severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. If released, he will reside with his wife and five children in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
36. Petitioner-Plaintiff Aracelio Rodriguez is a 61-year-old man and Cuban national who is currently detained by ICE at the Jackson Parish Correctional Center in Jonesboro, Louisiana. He suffers from severe asthma. Due to his age and medical conditions, he is at high risk of severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. If released, he will reside with his sister in West Palm Beach, Florida.
37. Petitioner-Plaintiff Desmond Nkobenei is a 25-year-old man and Cameroonian national who is currently detained by ICE at the Pine Prairie ICE Processing Center in Pine Prairie, Louisiana. He suffers from hypertension. He is therefore at high risk of severe illness
12

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 16 of 60 PageID #: 16
or death if he contracts COVID-19. If released, he will reside with his cousin in Capitol Heights, Maryland. Respondent-Defendants
38. Respondent-Defendant Dianne Witte is the Interim ICE New Orleans Field Office Director. The New Orleans Field Office is responsible for carrying out ICE’s immigration detention operations at all Louisiana detention centers that house detained immigrants, including all of Petitioner-Plaintiffs. Defendant Witte is a legal custodian of Petitioner-Plaintiffs. She is sued in her official capacity.
39. Respondent-Defendant Matthew T. Albence is the Deputy Director and Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director of ICE. Defendant Albence is responsible for ICE’s policies, practices, and procedures, including those relating to the detention of immigrants. Defendant Albence is a legal custodian of Petitioner-Plaintiffs. He is sued in his official capacity.
40. Respondent-Defendant ICE is a federal law enforcement agency within the Department of Homeland Security. ICE is responsible for the criminal and civil enforcement of immigration laws, including the detention and removal of immigrants. Enforcement and Removal Operations (“ERO”), a division of ICE, manages and oversees the immigration detention system. Defendant ICE is a legal custodian of Petitioner-Plaintiffs.
41. Respondent-Defendant Steven DeBellevue is Warden of Richwood Correctional Center, where Petitioner-Plaintiffs Mr. Gebremichael is detained. Respondent-Defendant DeBellevue is a legal custodian of Petitioner-Plaintiffs Mr. Gebremichael. He is sued in his official capacity.
42. Respondent-Defendant David Cole is the Warden of the LaSalle ICE Processing Center|, where Petitioner-Plaintiffs Ms. Dada, Ms. Flores de Saavedra, Ms. Carrera, Ms. Tejada
13

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 17 of 60 PageID #: 17
Dejaso, Ms. Del Bosque, Ms. Sampath Grant, Mr. Pardeep Kumar, Mr. Suresh Kumar, and Mr. Saleh are detained. Respondent-Defendant Cole is a legal custodian of Petitioner-Plaintiffs Ms. Dada, Ms. Flores de Saavedra, Ms. Carrera, Ms. Tejada Dejaso, Ms. Del Bosque, Ms. Sampath Grant, Mr. Pardeep Kumar, Mr. Suresh Kumar, and Mr. Saleh. He is sued in his official capacity.
43. Respondent-Defendant Keith Deville is the Warden of Winn Correctional Center, where Petitioner-Plaintiffs Mr. Asgari and Mr. Devora Espinosa are detained. RespondentDefendant Deville is a legal custodian of Petitioner-Plaintiffs Mr. Asgari and Mr. Devora Espinosa. He is sued in his official capacity.
44. Respondent-Defendant Tim Ducote is the Warden of Jackson Parish Correctional Center, where Petitioner-Plaintiff Mr. Rodriguez is detained. Respondent-Defendant Ducote is a legal custodian of Petitioner-Plaintiff Mr. Rodriguez. He is sued in his official capacity.
45. Respondent-Defendant Pat Book is the Warden of Catahoula Correctional Center, where Petitioners-Plaintiffs Mr. Colon and Mr. Ponnusamy are detained. RespondentDefendant Book is a legal custodian of Petitioners-Plaintiffs Mr. Colon and Mr. Ponnusamy. He is sued in his official capacity.
46. Respondent-Defendant Eric Staiger is the Warden of Pine Prairie ICE Processing Center, where Petitioner-Plaintiff Mr. Nkobenei is detained. Respondent-Defendant Book is a legal custodian of Petitioner-Plaintiff Mr. Nkobenei. He is sued in his official capacity.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. COVID-19 Is an Unprecedented and Lethal Global Pandemic. 47. COVID-19 is a disease caused by a novel coronavirus that has reached global pandemic status. As of April 13, 2020, over 1,773,000 individuals worldwide have confirmed
14

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 18 of 60 PageID #: 18
diagnoses, including more than 524,500 in the United States.18 More than 111,650 individuals worldwide have died as a result of COVID-19, including over 20,400 in the United States.19 Those numbers are growing exponentially, with more than 76,500 new cases worldwide in the past day alone.20
48. Nationally, CDC projections indicate that over 200 million individuals in the United States could be infected with COVID-19 over the course of the epidemic without effective public health intervention, with as many as 1.7 million deaths in the worst projections.21
49. President Trump has projected, optimistically, that the United States will experience up to 200,000 coronavirus-related deaths.22
50. COVID-19 is a highly contagious disease that is easily transmitted through respiratory droplets, especially when one is within six feet of an infected individual. Due to this, President Trump issued guidelines for U.S. citizens, recommending that all individuals “avoid nonessential travel, going to work, eating at bars and restaurants, or gathering in groups of more
18 World Health Org., Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report – 71, Mar. 31, 2020, available at https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200331-sitrep-71-covid19.pdf?sfvrsn=4360e92b_4.
19 Id. 20 Id. 21 See James Glanz, et al., Coronavirus Could Overwhelm U.S. without Urgent Action, Estimates Say, N.Y. Times, Mar. 20, 2020, available at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/20/us/coronavirus-model-usoutbreak.html; Sheri Fink, Worst-Case Estimates for U.S. Coronavirus Deaths, N.Y. Times, Mar. 13, 2020, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/us/coronavirus-deaths-estimate.html. 22 See Rebecca Ballhause et al., White House Extends Social-Distancing Guidelines Until End of April, The Wall Street Journal, Mar. 30, 2020, available at https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-deaths-top-30-000-as-chinaopens-up-province-where-it-began-11585466594?mod=hp_lead_pos1 (“So, if we can hold that down, as we’re saying to 100,000—it’s a horrible number—maybe even less, but to 100,000 — so we have between 100,000 to 200,000 — we all together have done a very good job,” the president said.”).
15

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 19 of 60 PageID #: 19
than 10” at least until April 30, 2020 and perhaps until June.23 Its symptoms include fever, cough, and shortness of breath.24
51. People can also spread COVID-19 but be asymptomatic,25 making testing or seclusion of only those who are symptomatic an ineffective solution.
52. COVID-19 can result in respiratory failure, kidney failure, and death. Infected individuals who do not die from the disease can face serious damage to the lungs, heart, liver, or other organs, resulting in prolonged recovery periods, including extensive rehabilitation from neurological damage and loss of respiratory capacity.
53. COVID-19 can also severely damage lung tissue, affect cardiac functions, and cause widespread damage to other organs. These complications can manifest at an alarming pace. Patients can show the first symptoms of infection in as little as two days after exposure, and their condition can seriously deteriorate in as little as five days or sooner.
54. Younger and healthy individuals who contract COVID-19 may require supportive care. And those who develop serious complications will need advanced support, including highly specialized equipment that is in very limited supply, and an entire team of care providers giving 24-hour care, including 1:1 or 1:2 nurse to patient ratios, respiratory therapists, and intensive care physicians. This level of support is especially difficult to provide to detained individuals, particularly at unsafe and under-resourced ICE detention facilities.
23 Michael D. Shear, Trump Extends Social Distancing Guidelines Through End of April, N.Y. Times, Mar. 29, 2020, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/29/us/politics/trump-coronavirus-guidelines.html.
24 Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html.
25 A study in Iceland, where COVID-19 testing is widespread, found that about half those who tested positive have no symptoms. Jason Gale, Coronavirus Cases Without Symptoms Spur Call for Wider Tests, Bloomberg, Mar. 22, 2020, available at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-22/one-third-of-coronavirus-cases-mayshow-no-symptom-scmp-reports.
16

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 20 of 60 PageID #: 20
55. The need for care, including intensive care, and the likelihood of death, is much higher from COVID-19 infection than from influenza. According to recent estimates, the fatality of people infected with the coronavirus is about ten times higher than a severe seasonal influenza, even in advanced countries with highly effective health care systems.
56. There is no vaccine against COVID-19, nor is there any known medication to prevent or cure infection from the virus.
57. The only known effective measure to reduce the risk of severe illness or death to vulnerable individuals is to prevent them from being infected with the coronavirus. Social distancing, or remaining physically separated from known or potentially infected individuals, and vigilant hygiene, including frequently washing hands with soap and water and disinfecting commonly touched areas, are the only known effective measures to prevent infection. In addition, those who are symptomatic, or who have come into contact with those who have tested positive for the virus, are advised to self-quarantine, removing themselves entirely from physical contact with others so as to prevent spread of the virus for a period of up to 14 days.
58. None of these practices are possible in detention facilities, where large numbers of people are housed in close quarters in congregate settings, with minimal access to sinks, showers, toilets, water, personal hygiene and facility cleaning supplies.
B. COVID-19 is Exceedingly Dangerous for Individuals Like Petitioner-Plaintiffs, Who Have Underlying Health Concerns.
59. Older individuals and those with certain medical conditions face dramatically higher chances of serious illness or death from COVID-19. Certain underlying medical conditions increase the risk of serious COVID-19 disease for individuals of any age, including lung disease, chronic liver or kidney disease, diabetes, epilepsy, hypertension, compromised immune systems, blood disorders, inherited metabolic disorders, stroke, and pregnancy.
17

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 21 of 60 PageID #: 21
60. Individuals detained in immigration detention centers, including those in Louisiana, are also more susceptible to experiencing complications from infectious diseases than the population at large. This is especially true for individuals with underlying conditions such as diabetes, lung disease, kidney disease, or other illness.
61. Petitioner-Plaintiffs in this case are individuals who are particularly vulnerable to serious illness or death if infected by COVID-19 and who are currently detained in immigration detention in Louisiana facilities as they await adjudication of their immigration cases.
62. Tatalu Helen Dada is a 40-year-old woman and Nigerian national, who is currently detained by ICE at the LaSalle ICE Processing Center in Jena, Louisiana. In addition to depression and anxiety, Ms. Dada suffers from Grave’s Disease, which is a serious autoimmune disorder that attacks the thyroid; she suffers from hypothyroidism, hypertension, asthma, malnutrition, and vision loss, and has been hospitalized numerous times due to her rapidly deteriorating health. She is therefore at extremely high risk of severe complications or death if she contracts COVID-19.
63. Ms. Dada’s medical conditions qualify as disabilities under the Rehabilitation Act. 64. Matilde Flores de Saavedra is a 78-year-old woman and Mexican national, who is currently detained by ICE at the LaSalle ICE Processing Center in Jena, Louisiana. She was recently diagnosed with diabetes, which remains uncontrolled and subjects her to extremely high blood-sugar levels; she also suffers from hypertension. She is therefore at high risk of severe illness or death if she contracts COVID-19. 65. Ms. Flores de Saavedra’s diabetes and hypertension qualify as disabilities under the Rehabilitation Act. 66. Sirous Asgari is a 59-year-old man and Iranian national who is currently detained by ICE at Winn Correctional Center in Winnfield, Louisiana. He has chronic lung problems and
18

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 22 of 60 PageID #: 22
susceptibility to lung infections, and in fact contracted pneumonia while in early 2020 while in another ICE detention center. While in ICE custody, he has suffered from hypertension. He also has a diagnosis of Grade 2 fatty liver disease. He is therefore at high risk of severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19.
67. Mr. Asgari’s lung disease and hypertension qualify as disabilities under the Rehabilitation Act
68. Suresh Kumar is a 37-year-old man and Indian national who is currently detained by ICE at the LaSalle ICE Processing Center in Jena, Louisiana. Mr. Kumar suffers from Hepatitis C, a chronic liver infection, malnutrition, and chronic pain to his chest, head, stomach, throat, and lower back. He is therefore at high risk of severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19.
69. Suresh Kumar’s medical conditions qualify as disabilities under the Rehabilitation Act.
70. Pardeep Kumar is a 28-year-old man and Indian national who is currently detained by ICE at the LaSalle ICE Processing Center in Jena, Louisiana. He suffers from malnutrition, which puts him at high risk for heart damage, as well as a kidney infection, chronic pain, and vision loss. He is therefore at high risk of severe illness or death if he contracts COVID19.
71. Pardeep Kumar’s medical conditions qualify as disabilities under the Rehabilitation Act.
72. Rosabel Carrera is a 59-year-old woman and Mexican national and is currently detained by ICE at the LaSalle ICE Processing Center in Jena, Louisiana. She suffers from diabetes. She also has a history of stroke and suffers from heart disease, hypertension, arthritis, and vision loss. She is therefore at high risk of severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19.
19

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 23 of 60 PageID #: 23
73. Ms. Carrera’s diabetes and hypertension qualify as disabilities under the Rehabilitation Act.
74. Sonia Lemus Tejada Dejaso is a 53-year-old woman and Guatemalan national who is currently detained by ICE at the LaSalle ICE Processing Center in Jena, Louisiana. She suffers from heart disease and hypertension and has a history of hospitalization for her heart issues. She is therefore at high risk of severe illness or death if she contracts COVID-19.
75. Ms. Tejada Dejaso’s heart disease and hypertension qualify as disabilities under the Rehabilitation Act.
76. Griselda Del Bosque is a 57-year-old woman and Mexican national who is currently detained by ICE at the LaSalle ICE Processing Center in Jena, Louisiana. She suffers from severe asthma, requires the use of an inhaler, and has had numerous asthma attacks and coughing fits while she has been detained. She also suffers from glaucoma and chronic arm, back, and knee pain, that make it hard for her to walk. She is therefore at high risk of severe illness or death if she contracts COVID-19.
77. Ms. Del Bosque’s asthma qualifies as a disability under the Rehabilitation Act. 78. Nadira Sampath Grant is a 53-year-old woman and national of Trinidad and Tobago who is currently detained by ICE at the LaSalle ICE Processing Center in Jena, Louisiana. She suffers from diabetes and diabetic related complications such as neuropathy and issues with her kidneys and vision. She is therefore at high risk of severe illness or death is she contracts COVID-19. 79. Ms. Sampath Grant’s diabetes qualifies as a disability under the Rehabilitation Act. 80. Petitioner-Plaintiff Eduardo Devora Espinosa is a 34-year-old Cuban national who is currently detained at the Winn Correctional Center in Winnfield, Louisiana. He suffers
20

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 24 of 60 PageID #: 24
from hypertension and diabetes. His diabetes has resulted in complications with his foot that have left him unable to walk without immense pain. He is therefore at high risk of severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19.
81. Mr. Devora Espinosa’s medical conditions qualify as disabilities under the Rehabilitation Act.
82. Petitioner-Plaintiff Abraham Gebremedhin Gebremichael is a 33-year-old Ethiopian national who is currently detained by ICE at the Richwood Correctional Center in Richwood, Louisiana. He suffers from bradycardia, a heart condition that leaves his body without sufficient oxygen. He has twice lost consciousness because of this condition while detained by ICE. He is therefore at high risk of severe illness or death if he contracts COVID19.
83. Mr. Gebremichael’s medical conditions qualify as disabilities under the Rehabilitation Act.
84. Petitioner-Plaintiff Rolando Alex Colon is a 47-year-old man and Honduran national who is currently detained by ICE at the Catahoula Correctional Center in Harrisonburg, Louisiana. He suffers from hypertension. He is therefore at high risk of severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19.
85. Mr. Colon’s medical conditions qualify as disabilities under the Rehabilitation Act. 86. Petitioner-Plaintiff Karthikeyan Ponnusamy is a 42-year-old man and Indian national who is currently detained by ICE at the Catahoula Correctional Center in Harrisonburg, Louisiana. He is currently experiencing regular chest pain and suffers from hypertension, diabetes, and Low Lactate Dehydrogenase, a blood condition which makes his blood thicker than normal. He is therefore at high risk of severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19.
21

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 25 of 60 PageID #: 25
87. Mr. Ponnusamy’s medical conditions qualify as disabilities under the Rehabilitation Act.
88. Petitioner-Plaintiff Hasan Saleh is a 62-year-old Jordanian national who is currently detained by ICE and LaSalle ICE Processing Center in Jena, Louisiana. He suffers from uncontrolled diabetes, hypertension, and high cholesterol and requires a cane to walk because of blood clots in his legs. Due to his age and medical conditions, he is at high risk of severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19.
89. Mr. Saleh’s medical conditions qualify as disabilities under the Rehabilitation Act. 90. Petitioner-Plaintiff Aracelio Rodriguez is a 61-year-old Cuban national who is currently detained at the Jackson Parish Correctional Center in Jonesboro, Louisiana. He suffers from asthma for many years, which has led to his hospitalization for lack of oxygen. Due to his medical condition, he is at high risk of severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. 91. Mr. Rodriguez’s medical condition qualifies as a disability under the Rehabilitation Act. 92. Petitioner-Plaintiff Desmond Nkobenei is a 25-year-old Cameroonian national who is currently detained at Pine Prairie ICE Processing Center in Pine Prairie, Louisiana. He suffers from hypertension, and has headaches and unclear vision because of his high blood pressure. Due to his medical condition, he is at high risk of severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. 93. Mr. Nkobenei’s medical condition qualifies as a disability under the Rehabilitation Act. C. Relevant ICE Detention Facilities Are Ticking Time Bombs Already Exposed to
Coronavirus; They Do Not, and Cannot Meet Public Health Standards to Prevent Widespread Infections Inside the Facilities and Are Deliberately Indifferent to the Known Health Risks.
22

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 26 of 60 PageID #: 26
94. The LaSalle, Winn, Jackson, Catahoula, Pine Prairie, and Richwood facilities are located in Louisiana, and are under the jurisdiction of the New Orleans ICE Field Office directed by Respondent-Defendant Witte. Louisiana is experiencing a coronavirus outbreak and public officials have put in place a number of significant restrictions on public gatherings, including by closing down schools, bars, restaurants, and other public places, limiting the size of public gatherings, and issuing ‘shelter in place’ orders, requiring residents to remain in their homes.
95. As of April 13, 2020, there were nearly 21,100 COVID-19 cases in Louisiana.26 The number of infected people is rising exponentially, and 880 people in Louisiana have died from the disease.27
96. These data include cases in all of the counties in which these facilities are located. Ouachita Parish, home to Richwood Correctional Center, has over 384 cases and five reported deaths. LaSalle Parish, where the LaSalle ICE Processing Center is located, has 13 cases. Winn Parish, the site of Winn Correctional Center, has 12 cases and two reported deaths.28 Catahoula Parish, the site of Catahoula Correctional Center, has 21 cases, and one reported death.29 Jackson Parish, the site of Jackson Parish Correctional Center, has eight cases.30 Evangeline Parish, the site of the Pine Prairie ICE Processing Center, has 38 confirmed cases.31
97. The exponential growth of coronavirus cases in Louisiana has been staggering. Data released March 21, 2020 by a researcher at the University of Louisiana Lafayette found that
26 Louisiana Department of Health, Coronavirus (COVID-19) (April 13, 2020), http://ldh.la.gov/coronavirus/. 27 Id. 28 Id. 29 Id. 30 Id. 31 Id.
23

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 27 of 60 PageID #: 27
Louisiana presently has the fastest spread of COVID-10 of any region in the world.32 Statewide, Louisiana is second only to New York in deaths per 100,000, with 582 reported as of April 7.33 Six parishes in the New Orleans area are in the top ten in deaths of all counties in the nation.34
98. COVID-19 has already made it into the Louisiana immigration detention facilities.
As of April 13, 2020, Pine Prairie now has two confirmed COVID-19 cases, and both Winn and
Richwood each have one as well. At least 11 staff members and 6 detained persons have so far tested positive for COVID-19 at Louisiana ICE facilities.35 There is an immediate and impending
threat that the coronavirus will spread uncontrollably throughout the Louisiana facilities.
99. Given the shortage of COVID-19 tests in the United States, generally, these
detention facilities cannot currently conduct aggressive, widespread testing to identify and track
all COVID-19 cases.
100. It is thus equally impossible for detention facilities to consistently and adequately
screen detained individuals and staff for new, asymptomatic infection.
101. In the absence of widespread testing, there is no way to be certain that COVID-19
is not already widespread in these facilities. And given the rapid spread of COVID-19 throughout
Louisiana, daily entry of staff and guards from the community, and the continued influx and
32 Louisiana Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, COVID-19 Louisiana Case Info, 2 (Mar. 21, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/docs/covid/govCV19Brief-2.pdf; see also Katy Reckdahl, et al., New Orleans Faces a Virus Nightmare and Mardi Gras May Be Why, N.Y. Times, Mar. 26, 2020, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/us/coronavirus-louisiana-new-orleans.html.
33 Coronavirus tracker, The Washington Post, April 8, 2020, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/national/coronavirus-us-cases-deaths/; Emma Discher, Coronavirus in Louisiana: Cases, deaths increase; number of patients on ventilators drops, The New Orleans Advocate, April 7, 2020, available at https://www.nola.com/news/coronavirus/article_139dd82a-78ec-11ea-b8c4-5f458d197eab.html.
34 Scott Calvert, New Orleans Area Has Worst Coronavirus Death Rate in U.S., The Wall Street Journal, April 4, 2020, available at https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-orleans-area-has-worst-coronavirus-death-rate-in-u-s11586008800; Kimberly Curth, New Orleans and Jefferson Parish have the Highest COVID-19 Death Rates in the Country, FOX8, Mar. 28, 2020, available at https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/new-orleans-and-jeffersonparish-have-the-highest-covid-19-death-rates-in-the-country/ar-BB11Ownx. 35 ICE COVID-19 Guidance, https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus (Apr. 8, 2020).
24

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 28 of 60 PageID #: 28
transfer of new people into detention facilities on a weekly or even daily basis, it is only a short matter of time before the disease becomes widespread among people detained in close, unsanitary conditions.
102. According to Dr. Jaimie Meyer, Assistant Professor of Medicine at Yale School of Medicine and a specialist in infectious diseases in the context of jails and prisons, an outbreak in these detention centers is “highly likely and . . . the consequences of rampant COVID-19 infection in the facility would be disastrous, especially for high-risk individuals like the plaintiffs in this case.”
103. Conditions in these detention centers make rapid spread of COVID-19 very likely. Detained individuals are housed in close quarters and in large groups, often with many dozens sleeping in one room, in beds spaced well under the distance of six feet apart that the CDC recommends to maintain social distancing.
104. Detained individuals in these facilities use common spaces together, sharing tables, telephones, and bathrooms. The hallways are tight, and people in the hallways are constantly in very close proximity to each other. Bathrooms with small numbers of showers, toilets and sinks are used by large numbers of people and are not sanitized or disinfected after each use. Staff arrive and leave on a shift basis, and even asymptomatic staff could carry the infection into the facility. Many guards, staff and even doctors do not wear masks or gloves, and detained individuals are not provided with them.
105. Many facilities do not have regular cleaning, leaving detained individuals to clean the sleeping areas and bathrooms with spray bottles, and rags they must reuse. Bleach is not available in some of the facilities, and they are also not provided with protective equipment to clean.
25

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 29 of 60 PageID #: 29
106. Additionally, alcohol-based hand sanitizers are unavailable at these facilities, and frequent handwashing is difficult at best given minimal access to soap and sinks. In some facilities there may be signs instructing people to wash hands, but there is no effort to educate detained people about frequency or method.
107. Because of these conditions, outbreaks of infectious diseases are extremely common in confined detention centers such as these and have resulted in the hospitalization or death of some individuals. Detained persons like Petitioner-Plaintiffs face inherent challenges to protect themselves from COVID-19 infection because they live, sleep, and use the bathroom in close proximity with others, and because “[b]ehind bars, some of the most basic disease prevention measures are against the rules or simply impossible.”36 Individuals who are detained cannot protect themselves by social distancing and vigilant hygiene as they could in the community. Congregate settings such as these detention centers allow for rapid spread of infectious diseases that are transmitted person to person, especially those that—like COVID-19—are transmitted by droplets through coughing and sneezing.
108. Therefore, a coronavirus brought into a detention facility will quickly spread among the dense group of detained individuals, including individuals, like Petitioner-Plaintiffs, who are at high risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19.
109. Moreover, these detention centers are also ill-equipped to manage an infectious disease outbreak. None of the facilities have 24-hour medical care with onsite physicians and they all have very limited on-site medical facilities. One Petitioner-Plaintiff at LaSalle, Pardeep Kumar, has been told that he cannot be transferred to a higher level of emergency medical care in
36 Keri Blakinger & Beth Schwartzapfel, When Purell is Contraband, How Do You Contain Coronavirus?, The Marshall Project, Mar. 6, 2020, available at https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/03/06/when-purell-iscontraband-how-do-you-contain-coronavirus (describing, for example, limited access to hand sanitizer and other precautionary measures).
26

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 30 of 60 PageID #: 30
Alexandria, Louisiana, because of a high rate of coronavirus there. Further, the medical systems in the rural communities surrounding these detention centers are already beginning to be overloaded, significantly reducing the capacity to provide emergency and intensive medical care.
110. The Louisiana detention centers also do not have negative pressure isolation units, meaning that they do not have any capacity to truly isolate spread of the disease through airborne respiratory droplets. Putting infected individuals in solitary confinement is an ineffective way to prevent transmission of the disease because air continues to flow outwards from those rooms to the rest of the facility. This makes containing the illness and caring for those who have become infected virtually impossible.
111. Further, the Louisiana detention facilities have continued to allow large numbers of detained people to enter and leave each facility, exposing thousands within the detention centers to close contact with potential new carriers. After a COVID-19 exposure was suspected at ICE’s Alexandria Staging Facility, more than 30 men, including Petitioner-Plaintiff Asgari, were transferred from there to Winn, where they were housed with a dozen men already at the latter facility. The Alexandria facility now has five confirmed COVID-19 cases.37
112. The coronavirus has already started to spread inside U.S. prisons and jails, and experts predict a mass contagion is only a matter of time.38 For example, on Friday, March 20, 2020 New York City officials had confirmed just one case at their jail facilities. The next day, they confirmed 19. Two days later, there were 38.39 By March 25, 2020, Rikers Island alone had 52
37 ICE COVID-19 Guidance, https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus (Apr. 8, 2020). 38 See Hannah Summers, ‘Everyone Will Be Contaminated’: Prisons Face Strict Coronavirus Controls, The Guardian, Mar. 23, 2020, available at https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/mar/23/everyone-willbe-contaminated-prisons-face-strict-coronavirus-controls. 39 A.P., Coronavirus: 38 Test Positive in New York City Jails, Including Rikers Island, The Guardian, Mar. 22, 2020, available at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/22/coronavirus-outbreak-new-york-city-jailsrikers-island.
27

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 31 of 60 PageID #: 31
confirmed cases. It now has over 273 confirmed cases amongst those who are incarcerated, and
there are over 370 confirmed cases amongst staff.40 In Chicago, Illinois, the Cook County jail now
has more than 350 confirmed coronavirus cases.41 At the federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”)
facility in Oakdale, Louisiana, six people have died and 38 incarcerated people and 17 staff have
confirmed cases.42 Oakdale officials have stopped testing for the virus due to its “sustained
transmission”.43 Thirty-nine staff have tested positive at the Orleans Justice Center, the jail in New
Orleans, and 21 detained individuals have tested positive – and five of those have been released.44
And in ICE detention in Louisiana, at least 11 staff and at least 6 detained persons have tested
positive for COVID-19.45
113. Despite these widespread warnings, the Louisiana detention facilities—like ICE
facilities across the country—remain woefully unprepared and incapable of taking necessary
precautions to protect people in their custody against a life-threatening illness.
40 See Jan Ransom & Alan Feuer, ‘We’re Left for Dead’: Fears of Virus Catastrophe at Rikers Jail, Mar. 30, 2020, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/30/nyregion/coronavirus-rikers-nyc-jail.html; Josiah Bates, New York’s Rikers Island Jail Sees First Inmate Death from COVID-19, Apr. 6, 2020, available at https://time.com/5816332/rikers-island-inmate-dies-coronavirus/.
41 Report: Cluster of COVID-19 Cases at Cook County Jail the Largest in the Nation, NBC Chicago, April 7, 2020, available at https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/report-cluster-of-covid-19-cases-at-cook-county-jailthe-largest-in-the-nation/2252000/
42 Federal Bureau of Prisons, COVID-19 Coronavirus: COVID-19 Cases (April 13, 2020), https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/index.jsp.
43 Nicholas Chrastil, Louisiana Federal Prison No Longer Testing Symptomatic Inmates for Coronavirus Due to ‘Sustained Transmission’, The Lens, Mar. 31, 2020, available at https://thelensnola.org/2020/03/31/louisianafederal-prison-no-longer-testing-symptomatic-inmates-for-coronavirus-due-to-sustainedtransmission/?utm_source=The+Lens&utm_campaign=c001b3be4dEMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_03_31_05_46&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bbcdaba031-c001b3be4d407119417.
44 Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office, Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office Update Regarding COVID-19 Precautions and Activitie (4-10-2020) (Apr. 10, 2020), available at http://www.opcso.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=639:orleans-parish-sheriffs-office-updateregarding-covid-19-precautions-and-activitie-04-10-2020&catid=1:latest-news.
45 ICE COVID-19 Guidance, https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus (Apr. 8, 2020).
28

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 32 of 60 PageID #: 32
D. ICE’s Response to COVID-19 Is Insufficient to Prevent the Spread of This LifeThreatening Disease and Is Contrary to the CDC Infectious Disease Guidance ICE is Required to Follow.
114. ICE sets standards for facilities that detain individuals in ICE custody, including the five facilities where Petitioner-Plaintiffs are currently detained. National Detention Standards for immigration detention facilities were first promulgated in 2000 and renamed and reissued by ICE as Performance-Based National Detention Standards (“PBNDS”) in 2008. ICE again reissued these standards in 2011 and revised them in December 2016.
115. The PBNDS govern the prisons ICE uses to hold civil detainees, including service processing centers, contract detention facilities, and state or local government facilities used by ERO to detain people for more than 72 hours pursuant to intergovernmental service agreements.46
116. The PBNDS, among other things, govern the medical standards for each detention facility dedicated to housing individuals in ICE custody.47
117. The PBNDS are supposed to “ensure[] that detainees have access to appropriate and necessary medical, dental and mental health care, including emergency services.” PBNDS §4.3. (“Medical Care”). Facilities are required to have plans to address the management of infectious and communicable diseases that include “control, treatment and prevention strategies.” PBNDS §4.3 (V)(C)(3).
118. The PBNDS also mandate that “Center for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) guidelines for the prevention and control of infectious and communicable diseases shall be followed.” PBNDS §4.3 (II)(10) (emphasis added).
46 ICE Performance-Based Detention Standards 2011 (“PBNDS”), available at https://www.ice.gov/detentionstandards/2011.
47 PBNDS, § 4.3 (“Medical Care”), available at https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-standards/2011/4-3.pdf.
29

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 33 of 60 PageID #: 33
119. In March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, the CDC issued several guidelines in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19.48
120. In order to limit the spread of COVID-19, the CDC has recommended that gatherings be limited to 50 people or less, canceling all “gatherings of more than 10 people for organizations that serve higher-risk population,” and warns that “the density of attendees within a confined area,” increases the risk of spreading the virus.49 These guidelines recommend that individuals remain 6 feet away from one another.
121. Additionally, on or about March 23, 2020, the CDC issued guidance for detention facilities “including…federal and state prisons, local jails, and detention centers.”50
122. The CDC guidance states that “[i]ncarcerated/detained persons live, work, eat, study, and recreate within congregate environments, heightening the potential for COVID-19 to spread once introduced” and warns that “[t]here are many opportunities for COVID-19 to be introduced into a correctional or detention facility, including daily staff ingress and egress… and incarcerated/detained persons may have medical conditions that increase their risk of severe disease from COVID-19.” 51
48 See CDC Guideline, Gatherings and Community Events, March 2020, available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/large-events/index.html; CDC guideline, Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities, March 2020, available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidance-correctionaldetention.html.
49 Center for Disease Control, Gatherings and Community Events, March 2020, available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/large-events/index.html. See also Implementation of Mitigation Strategies for Communities with Local COVID-19 Transmission, March 2020, available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/community-mitigation-strategy.pdf
50 Center for Disease Control, Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities, March 2020, available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/community/correction-detention/guidance-correctional-detention.html.
51 Id.
30

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 34 of 60 PageID #: 34
123. Further, the CDC guidance mandates that detention facilities “[e]nsure that sufficient stocks of hygiene supplies, cleaning supplies, PPE, and medical supplies… are on hand and available… provide a no-cost supply of soap to incarcerated/detained persons, sufficient to allow frequent hand washing…” and emphasizes the need for social distancing as a mechanism for preventing the transmission of COVID-19.52
124. The CDC has also warned that individuals who are 65 and older or who have an array of underlying conditions, including individuals with asthma, blood disorders, heart disease, lung conditions, and those with compromised immune systems, are at a higher risk of developing serious complications if they were to contract COVID-19.53
125. ICE issued an “Interim Reference Sheet on 2019-Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19)” and has established a webpage entitled “ICE Guidance on COVID-19.” These documents (collectively the “ICE Protocols”) will not protect Petitioner-Plaintiffs. The protocols also do not address imminent shortages of medical supplies and staffing or education of detained people and staff about the virus, amongst other critical issues. Nor do they implement the CDC’s guidelines for the management of the novel coronavirus in correctional and detention settings.
126. The ICE Protocols do not even offer an effective way to determine who has the virus. Since some COVID-19 carriers can be asymptomatic or not show symptoms for weeks after exposure, “screening people based on observable symptoms is just a game of catch up.” In re. Extradition of Alejandro Toledo Manrique, No. 19-mj-71055, 2020 WL 1307109 (N.D. Cal.
52 Id. 53 CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): People who are at higher risk for severe illness (Mar. 26, 2020), available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-at-higherrisk.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fspecificgroups%2Fpeople-at-higher-risk.html.
31

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 35 of 60 PageID #: 35
March 19, 2020) (ordering release on bond in part because the government’s management plan did not “say anything about testing”).
127. ICE has temporarily suspended social visitation in all detention facilities. But staff, contractors, and vendors continue to arrive and leave the detention centers. In addition, people are frequently transported to, from, and between facilities.
128. Anything short of aggressive screening and testing of all detained individuals, staff, officials and other care and service providers who enter the facility is insufficient to prevent infection. Neither ICE nor the Louisiana facilities have the resources necessary to engage in such measures, especially considering the shortage in available tests.
129. Instead, the only measure ICE has committed to taking is to segregate those who meet CDC criteria for epidemiologic risk of exposure to the coronavirus. Even assuming adequate space, isolation of people who are ill is generally an ineffective way to prevent transmission of COVID-19 because air continues to flow outward from rooms to the rest of the facility and because asymptomatic people also transmit the disease. Further, there is substantial evidence that ICE’s COVID-19 protocols are not being followed in detention centers throughout the country, including in the Louisiana detention facilities, and that ICE is otherwise failing to provide an adequate response—which has historically been the case—exacerbating the risk of harm to PetitionerPlaintiffs.
130. ICE has failed to follow the CDC guidelines designed to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in any of the six detention centers where Petitioner-Plaintiffs are held.
131. In LaSalle ICE Processing Center, where Petitioner-Plaintiffs Ms. Dada, Ms. Del Bosque, Ms. Sampath Grant, Ms. Carrera, Ms. Tejada Dejaso, Ms. Flores de Saavedra, Mr. Suresh Kumar, Mr. Pardeep Kumar, and Mr. Saleh are being detained, 80 people share one dorm, sharing
32

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 36 of 60 PageID #: 36
at most 6 toilets, 3 showers, 8 sinks and one microwave, with all day spent indoors except for 2-3 hours of exercise in an enclosed yard. At least 15 new detained people have been brought into the facility in the last two weeks, including one person brought into the facility who was sneezing and coughing. Conditions are unsanitary, with no sinks to clean food bowls. Detained people who clean the dorms for $1.00 per day are not given no masks or other protective gear for cleaning, and often run out of cleaning supplies. Beds are spaced a yard and a half apart, staff and detained people are not given masks or gloves, and dorms are cleaned only once per day. Doctors in the medical unit, where Petitioner-Plaintiffs Suresh Kumar and Pardeep Kumar are detained, do not wear masks.
132. In Richwood Correctional Center, where Petitioner-Plaintiff Mr. Gebremichael is being detained, 110 people share one dorm in which beds are spaced less than one meter apart. Detained people there have not had soap for a week and often do not have any supplies with which to clean or disinfect the dorms. Guards do not wear masks or gloves. Staff have told detained persons that if they drink water, they will be fine.
133. In the Winn Correctional Center, where Petitioner-Plaintiff Mr. Asgari and Mr. Devora Espinosa are detained, one bathroom and two unenclosed toilets are available for 44 detained men, rusted metal beds are spaced less than two feet apart, and the environment is so humid that the men’s bed sheets are soaked with perspiration each morning. Cleaning is done by the detained men, with some bleach made available but no masks or other protection. Detained persons at that facility were told by staff that there is no coronavirus in Louisiana.
134. In the LaSalle, Richwood, and Winn facilities, ICE has large numbers of people sleeping within as little as half a meter apart; has failed to provide enough cleaning materials or frequency of cleaning to prevent spread of illness from surfaces; has not provided detained people with adequate soap or hygiene facilities for hand-washing crucial to prevent the spread of COVID-
33

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 37 of 60 PageID #: 37
19; has provided no masks, gloves or protective gear for detained people or most staff; and has transferred new people into the facilities within the last several weeks, after the outbreak of COVID-19 began, all in violation of CDC guidelines.
135. In the Jackson Parish Correctional Center, where Petitioner-Plaintiff Mr. Rodriguez is detained, 100 men are confined to one room where they sleep in beds three feet apart. Cleaning supplies and soap are in short supply.
136. In the Catahoula Correctional Center, where Petitioners-Plaintiffs Mr. Colon and Mr. Ponnusamy are detained, men are confined about 60-100 men to a room and share one restroom, one shower room, and two telephones that are not disinfected after use. They have not been given soap and there is not even soap available to purchase. Guards do not wear masks or gloves.
137. In the Pine Prairie ICE Processing Center, where Petitioner-Plaintiff Mr. Nkobenei is detained, ICE crams 70 men into a 15-meter by 15-meter dorm in which they sleep in beds less than a meter apart. Guards only wear masks and gloves sporadically. The guards told the men in that facility not to believe the information on CNN about coronavirus and that no one in Pine Prairie has coronavirus, even after ICE had publicly confirmed on April 3, 2020 that a detained person at the facility had tested positive for COVID-19.
138. Importantly, the COVID-19 pandemic—and ICE’s unreasonable response to it— will significantly strain ICE’s already broken medical care system. Long before the COVID-19 outbreak, numerous public reports, including by DHS itself, have identified serious and substantial flaws in ICE’s medical care system. For example, a 2017 OIG report that assessed care at certain ICE facilities identified “lack of cleanliness and limited hygienic supplies” as well as “long waits
34

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 38 of 60 PageID #: 38
for the provision of medical care[.]”54 Other reports echo these alarming findings about substandard medical care in ICE facilities.55
139. Immigration detention facilities have faced outbreaks of other infectious diseases
in recent years due to overcrowding, poor hygiene measures, medical negligence, and poor access
to resources and medical care. As recently as last year, ICE mishandled and failed to take adequate
measures to protect detained individuals in Louisiana against outbreaks of chicken pox and mumps.56
140. And ICE has a long history of mishandling infectious and communicable diseases,
struggling to contain them, and failing to follow nationally accepted standards. The Office of the
Inspector General (“OIG”) of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) even concluded in
a 2019 report that ICE “does not adequately hold detention facility contractors accountable for not
meeting performance standards,” “issued waivers to facilities with deficient conditions, seeking to
exempt them from complying with certain standards,” and “does not adequately share information about ICE detention contracts with key officials.”57
54 DHS Office of the Inspector General, Concerns About ICE Detainee Treatment and Care at Detention Facilities, OIG-18-32 at 7 (Dec. 11, 2017), https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017-12/OIG-18-32-Dec17.pdf.
55 See, e.g., U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO-16-23: Immigration Detention: Additional Actions Needed to Strengthen Mgmt. and Oversight of Detainee Med. Care (Feb. 2016), available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/675484.pdf; Human Rts. Watch et al.,, Code Red: The Fatal Consequences of Dangerously Substandard Med. Care in Immigration Detention, at 15, 19, 25, 46 (June 2018), available at https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/us0618_immigration_web2.pdf; J. David McSwane, ICE Has Repeatedly Failed to Contain Contagious Diseases, Our Analysis Shows. It’s a Danger to the Public, PROPUBLICA (Mar. 20, 2020), available at https://www.propublica.org/article/ice-has-repeatedly-failed-to-contain-contagiousdiseases-our-analysis-shows-its-a-danger-to-the-public.
56 Emma Ockerman, Migrant Detention Centers Are Getting Slammed with Mumps and Chickenpox, Vice News (Jun. 14, 2019), available at https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mb8k5q/migrant-detention-centers-are-gettingslammed-with-mumps-and-chicken-pox.
57 See DHS Office of Inspector General, ICE Does Not Fully Use Contracting Tools to Hold Detention Facility Contractors Accountable for Failing to Meet Performance Standards, OIG-19-18, at 1 (Jan. 29, 2019), available at https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2019-02/OIG-19-18-Jan19.pdf.
35

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 39 of 60 PageID #: 39
141. Moreover, ICE has routinely failed to remedy inhumane conditions because, according to the OIG, “ICE does not adequately follow up on identified deficiencies or consistently hold facilities accountable for correcting them, which further diminishes the usefulness of inspections. . . . with some deficiencies remaining unaddressed for years.”58
142. ICE has even publicly acknowledged the need to limit the spread of the virus and the number of people in its detention centers, announcing that it will delay enforcement actions to arrest fewer immigrants and will use alternatives to detention as a response to the COVID-19 outbreak for new people they arrest in the field.59 But the agency still has no plan to release vulnerable individuals who are currently in custody,60 and has not stopped bringing new people into the detention centers.
143. Given the rapid spread of COVID-19, the likelihood of spread before a person infected with the virus is symptomatic, highly limited availability of testing, ICE’s repeated failure to meet adequate standards for controlling infectious disease outbreaks in its facilities, and current conditions at the Louisiana detention centers, Defendants cannot prevent the spread of COVID-19 in those facilities.
E. ICE’s Inadequate Response to COVID-19 Has Also Unreasonably Limited Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ Right of Access to Counsel.
58 See DHS Office of the Inspector General, ICE’s Inspections and Monitoring of Detention Facilities Do Not Lead to Sustained Compliance or Systemic Improvements, OIG-18-67, at 1 (June 26, 2018), available at https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2018-06/OIG-18-67-Jun18.pdf.
59 See Maria Sacchetti and Arelis R. Hernández, ICE to stop most immigration enforcement inside the U.S., will focus on criminals during coronavirus outbreak, The Washington Post (Mar. 18, 2020), available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ice-halting-most-immigration-enforcement/2020/03/18/d0516228-696c11ea-abef-020f086a3fab_story.html.
60 Noah Lanard, ICE Is Ignoring Recommendations to Release Immigrant Detainees to Slow the Spread of Coronavirus, Mother Jones (Mar. 20, 2020), available at https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/03/ice-isignoring-recommendations-to-release-immigrant-detainees-to-slow-the-spread-of-coronavirus/.
36

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 40 of 60 PageID #: 40
144. ICE’s regulations provide for meaningful access to counsel. See 8 C.F.R. §292.5(b) (requiring that “[w]henever an examination is provided for . . . the person involved shall have the right to be represented by an attorney or representative who shall be permitted to examine or crossexamine such person and witnesses, to introduce evidence, to make objections which shall be stated succinctly and entered on the record, and to submit briefs.”).
145. In addition, the PBNDS provide the primary mechanism through which ICE executes its duty to ensure access to counsel. The PBNDS require that facilities “permit legal visitation seven days a week, including holidays, for a minimum of eight hours per day on regular business days ... and a minimum of four hours per day on weekends and holidays.” Id. at § 5.7 (IV)(J)(2). Meetings between detained people and legal representatives must be “confidential” and “[p]rivate consultation rooms shall be available for such meetings.” Id. at § 5.7 (II)(2). In addition, “[d]etainees and their legal counsel shall be able to communicate effectively with each other,” “[p]rivacy for detainee telephone calls regarding legal matters shall be ensured,” and “[t]elephone access procedures shall foster legal access and confidential communications with attorneys.” Id. at § 5.6 (II)(4)-(6).
146. ICE has erected numerous barriers to meaningful access to counsel to people detained in immigration facilities long before the outbreak of COVID-19, for example by detaining people in remote locales far from family and counsel such as the LaSalle, Richwood, and Winn facilities. In addition, ICE and the entities it contracts with to detain immigrants frequently restrict access to interpreters, limit in-person contact with attorneys, or interfere with confidential communications with counsel through scarcity of private meeting rooms and telephones.
147. These barriers to meaningful access to counsel have been heightened during the COVID-19 emergency. On March 13, 2020, ICE announced that it would be suspending all social
37

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 41 of 60 PageID #: 41
visitation to detained people and issuing limitations on in-person legal visitation. For example, in addition to requiring attorneys seeking in-person contact with their clients to undergo “the same [screening] procedures as staff . . . ICE will require all legal visitors to provide and wear PPE (e.g., gloves, N-95 masks, and eye protection) while visiting with any client at any facility.”61 There is currently a shortage of PPE and other protective materials across the nation, and attorneys that cannot obtain PPE are not able to meet with their clients.
148. There is no parallel requirement for guards and staff who enter from the outside community to wear PPE while inside detention facilities. Indeed, many guards and staff at the LaSalle, Winn, and Richwood facilities do not wear masks, gloves, or other forms of PPE while on duty.
149. LaSalle provides essentially no confidential phone access for detained people. The Richwood facility has no VTC capability. With few telephones shared among several dozen people in all facilities and several days’ waiting time for the VTC system in facilities with such capabilities, detained people do not have adequate access to counsel when in-person visitation is limited.
150. These barriers are heightened even further for detained people like PetitionerPlaintiffs, whose native language is not English, who may not be familiar with the United States court system, and who are disabled and/or facing significant medical challenges.
151. At a time when individuals in detention are facing increasing risks of harm as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, access to attorneys is essential for the purpose of preparing highly fact-intensive applications for bond and parole proceedings. These restrictions significantly
61 ICE Guidance on COVID-19 (updated March 24, 2020), available at https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus#wcmsurvey-target-id. “PPE” refers to “Personal Protective Equipment.”
38

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 42 of 60 PageID #: 42
reduce, and in some cases eliminate, meaningful access to counsel and the courts, for vulnerable people facing the extremely high stakes of immigration proceedings.
F. The Consensus of Public Health Experts Is That Individuals Most Vulnerable to COVID-19 Should Immediately Be Released to Protect them From Serious Illness or Death.
152. The only viable public health strategy currently available in the United States is risk mitigation. For this reason, public health experts with experience in immigration detention and correctional settings have consistently recommended the release of vulnerable detained individuals from custody.
153. As early as February 25, 2020, Dr. Scott Allen and Dr. Josiah Rich, medical experts to the Department of Homeland Security, shared concerns with the agency about the specific risk to detained immigrants as a result of COVID-19. These experts warned of the danger of rapid spread of the coronavirus in immigration detention facilities. In a whistleblower letter to Congress, Dr. Allen and Dr. Rich recommended that “[m]inimally, DHS should consider releasing all detainees in high risk medical groups such as older people and those with chronic diseases.” They concluded that “acting immediately will save lives not of only those detained, but also detention staff and their families, and the community-at-large.”62
154. Indeed, governments in the United States and worldwide have recognized the threat posed by COVID-19 spread among detained and incarcerated populations and have released detained individuals for that reason. For example, Iran temporarily released more than 80,000 detained individuals to curb the spread of the virus.63 In the United States, several jurisdictions
62 Letter from Scott A. Allen, MD and Josiah Rich, MD, MPH to Congressional Committee Chairpersons, dated Mar. 19, 2020, available at https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6816336/032020-Letter-From-Drs-AllenRich-to-Congress-Re.pdf.
63 Parisa Hafezi, Iran Temporarily Frees 85,000 From Jail Including Political Prisoners, Reuters (Mar. 17, 2020), available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-iran-prisoners/iran-temporarily-frees85000-from-jail-including-political-prisoners-amid-coronavirus-idUSKBN21410M.
39

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 43 of 60 PageID #: 43
including Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago have also released detained individuals for the
same reasons.64 In New Orleans, Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin Gusman has released individuals
and called upon the courts to do so as well.65
155. Releasing the most vulnerable people, such as Petitioner-Plaintiffs, would also
reduce the burden on regional hospitals and health centers. In case of an outbreak at a detention
center, those institutions would bear the brunt of having to treat infected individuals from detention
centers and would have fewer medical resources available for the general population.
156. ICE has the authority to release individuals from custody on medical grounds and
has routinely exercised its authority to release particularly vulnerable detained individuals like
Petitioner-Plaintiffs. The former Acting Director of ICE, John Sandweg, has stated that “ICE can,
and must, reduce the risk [COVID-19] poses to so many people, and the most effective way to do
so is to drastically reduce the number of people it is currently holding.”66
64 Jan Ransom & Alan Feuer, We’re Left for Dead: Fears of Virus Catastrophe at Rikers Jail, New York Times (Mar. 30, 2020), available at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/30/nyregion/coronavirus-rikers-nyc-jail.html; Maura Dolan, Alene Tchekmedyian & Paige St. John, California releases more jail inmates amid coronavirus crisis, Los Angeles Times (Mar. 20, 2020), available at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-20/californiareleases-more-jail-inmates-amid-coronavirus-crisis; David Struett, Cook County Jail releases several detainees ‘highly vulnerable’ to coronavirus, Chicago Sun-Time (Mar. .17, 2020), available at https://chicago.suntimes.com/coronavirus/2020/3/17/21183289/cook-county-jail-coronavirus-vulnerable-detaineesreleased-covid-19.
65 The Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office has released at least 23 individuals from the Orleans Justice Center, the parish jail. WDSU Digital Team, Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office releases some inmates with minor charges under COVID-19 plan, WDSU (Mar. 19, 2020), available at https://www.wdsu.com/article/orleans-parish-sheriffs-officereleases-some-inmates-with-minor-charges-under-covid-19-plan/31788756#. Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin Gusman has also called on the judges of the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court to release individuals. Letter from Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin N. Gusman to Hon. Robin Pittman, Deputy Chief Judge, Orleans Parish Criminal District Court (Mar. 26, 2020), available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6819741-Letter-FromSheriff-Gusman-to-Judge-Pittman.html..
66 John Sandweg, I Used to Run ICE. We Need to Release the Nonviolent Detainees, The Atlantic Monthly (Mar. 22, 2020), available at https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/release-ice-detainees/608536/; Camilo Montoya-Galvez, “Powder kegs”: Calls grow for ICE to release immigrants to avoid coronavirus outbreak, CBS News (Mar. 19, 2020), available at https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-ice-release-immigrants-detentionoutbreak/.
40

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 44 of 60 PageID #: 44
LEGAL FRAMEWORK A. Petitioner-Plaintiffs have a Substantive Due Process Right to Protection from Serious
Illness and Potentially Lethal Harm. 157. Because Petitioner-Plaintiffs are in federal civil immigration detention, their constitutional rights flow from the procedural and substantive guarantees of the Fifth Amendment. Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss., 74 F.3d 633, 639 (5th Cir. 1996); Ortega v. Rowe, 796 F.2d 765, 767 (5th Cir. 1986). 158. When the government holds individuals in its custody, it assumes the affirmative obligation to provide for their basic human needs, including medical care, reasonable safety, and protection from harm. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 200 (1989); Hare, 74 F.3d at 650 (5th Cir. 1996). A government “transgresses the substantive limits on state action set by the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause” when it fails to satisfy its “affirmative duty to protect.” DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 200. 159. “Under the Due Process Clause, a detainee may not be punished prior to an adjudication of guilt in accordance with due process of law.” Hare, 74 F.3d at 651. See also Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 80 (1992). Therefore, persons detained civilly, including in immigration detention like Petitioner-Plaintiffs, are entitled to “more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish.” Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 322 (1982); In re Kumar, 402 F. Supp. 3d 377, 384 (W.D. Tex. 2019). A person detained civilly has due process rights that are “at least as great as the Eighth Amendment protections available to a convicted prisoner.” Hare., 74 F.3d at 639 (citations omitted). 160. Courts have held that an immigration detainee’s due process rights should be evaluated at an even higher standard than that of pretrial detainees. In re Kumar, 402 F. Supp. 3d
41

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 45 of 60 PageID #: 45
at 384; Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 933 (9th Cir. 2004). But at the very least, the standard applicable in the pretrial criminal detention context applies here.
161. The government violates the due process rights of a person in civil detention when the conditions of his or her confinement “amount[s] to punishment.” Garza v. City of Donna, 922 F.3d 626, 632 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied sub nom. Garza v. City of Donna, Texas, 140 S. Ct. 651 (2019). If “a restriction or condition is not reasonably related to a legitimate goal—if it is arbitrary or purposeless—a court permissibly may infer that the purpose of the governmental action is punishment that may not constitutionally be inflicted upon detainees qua detainees.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 539 (1979); accord Hare, 74 F.3d at 640 (5th Cir. 1996).
162. To show that a condition of confinement amounts to punishment, the detained person need not demonstrate an official subjectively or maliciously intends to punish; instead “intent may be inferred from the decision to expose the detainee to an unconstitutional condition.” Shepherd v. Dallas Cty., 591 F.3d 445, 452 (5th Cir. 2009). “[E]ven where a State may not want to subject a detainee to inhumane conditions of confinement or abusive jail practices, its intent to do so is nevertheless presumed when it incarcerates the detainee in the face of such known conditions and practices.” Hare, 74 F.3d at 644. “A pervasive pattern of serious deficiencies” that subjects a detainee to the risk of serious injury, illness or death “amounts to unconstitutional punishment.” Shepherd, 591 F.3d at 454. Such a pattern is evidenced by, for example, failing to provide adequate means to control a known risk of serious infections. Duvall v. Dallas Cty., Tex., 631 F.3d 203, 208 (5th Cir. 2011).
163. In addition, it is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, and therefore necessarily a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause that is applicable here, for a federal official to show “deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm” to
42

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 46 of 60 PageID #: 46
a detainee. Doe v. Robertson, 751 F.3d 383, 385 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994)); Hare, 74 F.3d at 649. This occurs, for example, when officials “know[] of and disregard[] an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Doe v. Robertson, 751 F.3d at 388.
164. A detained person “does not need to show that death or serious illness has yet occurred to obtain relief,” instead, they need only “show that the conditions pose a substantial risk of harm to which… officials have shown a deliberate indifference.” Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 339 (5th Cir. 2004). Federal custodians may not ignore “a condition of confinement that is sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering the next week or month or year.” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993).
165. Specifically, housing detained persons in crowded conditions where they are at risk of infectious disease is unconstitutional, even when it “is not alleged that the likely harm would occur immediately and even though the possible infection might not affect all of those exposed.” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. at 33 (citing Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 682 (1978)). Nor can officials “be deliberately indifferent to the exposure of inmates to a serious, communicable disease on the ground that the complaining inmate shows no serious current symptoms.” Helling, 509 U.S. at 33.
166. Despite their awareness of the rapid spread of COVID-19, the importance of social distancing and sanitary practices for its prevention, the threat that it poses to the lives of those who, like Petitioner-Plaintiffs, have certain underlying medical conditions, and the impossibility of protecting Petitioner-Plaintiffs who are held in ICE detention centers, Defendants continue to detain Petitioner-Plaintiffs. This amounts to a punitive condition of confinement or, at the very least, deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to Petitioner-Plaintiffs – either of which suffices to show a due process violation and compels an order of release.
43

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 47 of 60 PageID #: 47
B. ICE Lacks a Constitutionally Sufficient Purpose for Continued Detention of Medically Vulnerable Individuals. 167. Non-criminal confinement “constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty that
requires due process protection,” and, thus, the government “must have ‘a constitutionally adequate purpose for the confinement.’” Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354, 361 (1983) (quoting O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 574 (1975)); see also Foucha, 504 U.S. at 80 (“We have always been careful not to ‘minimize the importance and fundamental nature’ of the individual’s right to liberty.” (quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 750 (1987)).
168. Due process requires that the nature and duration of a noncriminal confinement bear “some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed.” Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 738 (1972); Brown v. Taylor, 911 F.3d 235, 243 (5th Cir. 2018).
169. The only legitimate purpose, consistent with due process, for federal civil immigration detention is to prevent flight risk and ensure the detained person’s attendance for a legal hearing adjudicating their status or potential removal, or to otherwise ensure the safety of the community. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 699 (2001).
170. The purpose of ensuring attendance at a merits hearing is fundamentally eviscerated where detained persons, such as Petitioner-Plaintiffs are exposed to coronavirus, symptomatic, seriously ill, or even dead. Continued detention in such circumstances is arbitrary, purposeless restraint entirely inconsistent with the principle of proportionality at the heart of due process.
171. Once an otherwise valid basis for detention no longer applies, substantive due process requires the state to release the detained person. Foucha, 504 U.S. at 86 (ordering petitioner’s release from commitment to mental institution because there was no longer any evidence of mental illness); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 363-64 (1997) (upholding statute
44

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 48 of 60 PageID #: 48
requiring civil confinement for sex offenders in part because it provided for immediate release once an individual no longer posed a threat to others).
C. Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ Continued Detention Violates Procedural Due Process 172. Where a governmental action limits a fundamental right, here freedom from
detention, heightened scrutiny is applied, and the governmental action will be upheld only if it is necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest. See, e.g., Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997); Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 363 (1996)) (“Due process places a heightened burden of proof on the State in civil proceedings in which the individual interests at stake . . . are both particularly important and more substantial than mere loss of money.”) (internal citations and quotations omitted). In addition to demonstrating a “compelling interest” in detention, the government must show that the detention is narrowly tailored, i.e., “implemented in a manner that is ‘carefully limited’ and ‘narrowly focused.’” Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 302 (1993) (quoting Foucha, 504 U.S. at 81).
173. In addition to substantive limits on detention, detained persons must “be afforded adequate procedures ensuring against erroneous confinement.” Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 566, n. 22 (2003) (Souter, J. concurring). See id. at 551 (“the substantive demands of due process necessarily go hand in hand with the procedural.”); Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001) (Noncriminal detention must be subject to “strong procedural protections.”). At bottom, Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires proportionality in government conduct. See, e.g., BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996); Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 606 (1993).
174. As previously alleged, the government’s only legitimate interest in PetitionerPlaintiffs’ continued detention – either to minimize flight risk pending trial or removal or to prevent danger to the community, Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690 – is no longer applicable. Yet the
45

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 49 of 60 PageID #: 49
purportedly legitimate government purposes for detention simply fall away when someone is facing lethal harm. Continued detention despite changed circumstances that render the basis of detention null, is the height of arbitrariness. See Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. at 343 (“a blanket rule that simply presumes that detention is more appropriate than release to responsible adults is not narrowly focused on serving that interest.).
175. Similarly, given restrictions on counsel and the adjudicative process, all removal proceedings have or likely will be suspended. And, a hearing weeks or months from this date may be no relief at all, because Petitioners may contract COVID-19 and die. See Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 993 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[T]here is a significant risk that the individual will be needlessly deprived of the fundamental right to liberty.”) At the same time, there are more “narrowly focused” means to ensure Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ appearance in legal proceedings, which do not subject them to the dangers of detention, for example, supervised or conditional release would suffice to meet the government’s interest without subjecting Petitioner-Plaintiffs to severe danger.
176. The Government also cannot establish that it has a compelling interest in keeping Petitioner-Plaintiffs detained. Each Plaintiff has a severe medical ailment and is immunocompromised. Given that the only established method to protect oneself from the virus is to self-isolate, the likelihood of a post-release danger to the community from elderly or ill persons is infinitesimal and cannot justify the maximal deprivation of liberty – detention – with a resulting risk of serious illness or death
177. Under normal circumstances, at least some of the Petitioner-Plaintiffs would be able to seek either initial or changed-circumstances bond hearings in the immigration courts, see 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(1)-(2), or could petition for release on parole. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A).
46

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 50 of 60 PageID #: 50
However, these are not normal circumstances. As alleged supra, because of the circumstances generated by the pandemic Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ access to counsel is sparse, if at all, and the immigration courts charged with reviewing challenges to detention are struggling to manage caseloads, hold timely hearings, and consider relevant evidence. This is a quintessential procedural due process violation. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (“the fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.”).
178. The bond, parole and removal proceedings may be civil in nature, but they have the highest possible stakes for Plaintiffs-Petitioners. Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 373 (2010) (“The severity of deportation. . . underscores how critical it is” for immigrants to have effective counsel). The remedy for the deprivation of Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ procedural due process rights is outright release, if not release pending future bond hearings and parole considerations once immigration proceedings regain regularity.
D. Habeas Is a Broad, Flexible Remedy That Authorizes Courts to Order Release from Unlawful Detention Conditions as Law and Equity Requires. 179. Petitioner-Plaintiffs seek relief under the federal habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
which is itself infused with long-standing common law equitable principles. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) (the writ extends to those prisoners “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States”). “Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention.” Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008).
180. Habeas invests in federal courts broad, equitable authority to “dispose of the matter as law and justice require,” 28 U.S.C. § 2243, as the “very nature of the writ demands that it be administered with the initiative and flexibility.” Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 292 (1969); see Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 780 (2008) (“Habeas is not ‘a static, narrow, formalistic
47

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 51 of 60 PageID #: 51
remedy; its scope has grown to achieve its grand purpose.’”) (quoting Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 243 (1963)).
181. Accordingly, the illegality of custody under the “Constitution or laws . . . of the United States” may stem from the fact of detention and the duration of detention – what is often referred to as the “historical core” of habeas – and, as many courts recognize, for unlawful placement or conditions of detention. See Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971) (habeas challenging “living conditions and disciplinary measures” is “cognizable in federal habeas corpus”); see also Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023, 1031-38 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (surveying history, purpose and Supreme Court jurisprudence and “the weight of the reasoned precedent in the federal Courts of Appeal” relating to habeas and concluding “habeas corpus tests not only the fact but also the form of detention.”). Here, because Petitioner-Plaintiffs seek relief from detention conditions that cannot be remediated or improved, their challenge cannot be deemed a challenge to conditions of confinement of the kind that some courts find lie outside of habeas; because the only available remedy in these circumstances is release, their claims challenge the unlawful fact of detention and sit at the core of habeas.
182. A court is fully empowered to remediate the particular illegality here – an outbreak of lethal and unavoidable virus that threatens petitioners and violates their constitutional rights to be free from arbitrary and punitive detention – by ordering their release. Habeas corpus is, “above all, an adaptable remedy,” Boumediene, 553 U.S. at 780, and federal courts retain “broad discretion in conditioning a judgment granting habeas relief . . . ‘as law and justice require’.” Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 775 (1987) (quoting 2243). That authority includes an order of release, Boumediene, 553 U.S. at 779, so as “to insure that miscarriages of justice within [the writ’s] reach are surfaced and corrected.” Harris, 395 U.S. at 291.
48

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 52 of 60 PageID #: 52
E. ICE’s Restrictions on Access to Counsel Violate the Fifth Amendment. 183. People detained by ICE are entitled to meaningful access to counsel. Courts
consistently interpret the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to require people in removal proceedings to have access to counsel at full and fair hearings. See, e.g., Barthold v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 517 U.S. 689 (1975); Nunez v. Boldin, 537 F. Supp. 578 (N.D. Tex. 1982).
184. ICE’s restrictions on access to counsel violate Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ rights to counsel under the Due Process Clause. Given the severity and projected length of the pandemic and the increasing likelihood of risk to both detained people and their visitors, Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ rights to meet with counsel and prepare for their cases cannot be guaranteed while they are detained, and they must be released.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: VIOLATION OF FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS 185. Petitioner-Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs. 186. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees persons in civil immigration detention the right to reasonable safety and to be free from punitive conditions of confinement, and requires that the government have a constitutionally adequate, non-punitive purpose for continued detention. These requirements are violated when a condition of detention is not reasonably related to a legitimate government objective and when government officials are deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to the detained person.
49

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 53 of 60 PageID #: 53
187. Defendants continue to detain Petitioner-Plaintiffs, whose underlying health conditions render them particularly vulnerable to contracting COVID-19, spreading it to others, and suffering serious injury or death as a result.
188. The conditions of detention in the LaSalle, Winn, and Richwood facilities increase Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ risk of contracting COVID-19. There have been cases of COVID-19 reported in the parishes or counties where each of these facilities are located. Defendants have not, and could not possibly, implement social distancing measures that are required to prevent the rapid spread of COVID-19 in these facilities. Defendants also have not implemented any adequate hygiene practices as recommended by the CDC.
189. Defendants have failed in their obligation to adequately protect Petitioner-Plaintiffs from exposure to COVID-19. This puts Petitioner-Plaintiffs at a substantial risk of serious illness or death.
190. Defendants know about the prevalence of COVID-19 in Louisiana, and the risk that it poses to individuals with certain underlying conditions. Under these circumstances, PetitionerPlaintiffs’ continued detention by Defendants amounts to deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of harm to Petitioner-Plaintiffs.
191. Defendants’ exposure of Petitioner-Plaintiffs to this substantial risk of serious illness or death amounts to punishment.
192. Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ ongoing confinement lacks a reasonable relationship to any legitimate government purpose. Petitioner-Plaintiffs do not pose a danger or a flight risk, and these considerations alone are insufficient to countervail the severe risk of severe illness or even death that Petitioner-Plaintiffs face if they are not released.
50

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 54 of 60 PageID #: 54
193. Absent judicial relief in the form of release from detention, Petitioner-Plaintiffs are suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable harm.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: VIOLATION OF FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
194. Petitioner-Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
195. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees persons in immigration detention the fundamental right to freedom from confinement. To justify a denial of this right, there must be a compelling governmental interest that is narrowly tailored, and detained persons must be afforded adequate procedures that ensure against erroneous confinement.
196. The weight of the government’s interests in ensuring a lack of flight risk and preventing danger to the community is severely diminished during the pendency of the pandemic. Further, mandating Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ continued detention at risk of death during a global pandemic is grossly disproportionate to the government’s interests. Furthermore, it is not sufficiently tailored, fails to account for reasonable alternatives, and denies Petitioner-Plaintiffs the right to be meaningfully heard.
197. To ensure adequate procedural protections exist, the extraordinary circumstances alleged justify this Court’s intervention to order Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ outright release during the pendency of the COVID-19 crisis, or at least release until immigrations proceedings regain regularity, at which point it may order bond hearings and requests for parole.
198. Absent judicial relief in the form of release from detention, Petitioner-Plaintiffs are suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable harm.
51

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 55 of 60 PageID #: 55
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF: HABEAS AUTHORITY TO ORDER RELEASE FROM UNLAWFUL DETENTION
199. Petitioner-Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
200. The Court has broad, equitable authority under the habeas statute, 28 USC 2241, 2243 and the common law, to dispose of Petitioners-Plaintiffs’ cases as law and justice require, based on the unique facts and circumstances of their cases, in order to remedy Petitioners’ unlawful conditions of detention.
201. The Court should exercise this authority to grant Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ habeas corpus petition and to fashion any and all additional relief, necessary to effectuate PetitionerPlaintiffs’ expeditious release from unlawful detention. In the absence of such relief, PetitionerPlaintiffs are suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable harm.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: VIOLATION OF FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS (RIGHT TO COUNSEL
AND TO A FULL AND FAIR HEARING) 202. Petitioner-Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs. 203. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to the effective assistance of counsel in their removal proceedings at no cost to the government and to a full and fair hearing. 204. Petitioner-Plaintiffs are represented by counsel in removal proceedings. Defendants’ policies, practices, and omissions have created substantial barriers to PetitionerPlaintiffs efforts to access counsel and prepare their claims.
52

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 56 of 60 PageID #: 56
205. Petitioner-Plaintiffs have a substantial interest in avoiding prolonged detention during a highly infectious pandemic as well as in ultimately prevailing in their bond, parole, and removal proceedings.
206. Petitioner-Plaintiffs have suffered and will imminently suffer irreparable injury as a result of Defendants’ policies, practices, and omissions and are entitled to injunctive relief to avoid any further injury.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE REHABILITATION ACT (FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES) 207. Petitioner-Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs. 208. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act requires federal agencies to provide “reasonable accommodations” to individuals with disabilities so they can fully participate in benefits administered by these agencies. 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). 209. DHS regulations implementing the Rehabilitation Act mandate that “[n]o qualified individual with a disability in the United States, shall, by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity conducted by the Department.” 6 C.F.R. § 15.30; see also 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). The regulations implementing Section 504 prohibit entities receiving federal financial assistance from utilizing “criteria or methods of administration (i) that have the effect of subjecting qualified handicapped persons to discrimination on the basis of handicap, (ii) that have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing the accomplishment of the objectives of the recipient’s program or activity with respect to handicapped persons.” 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(b)(4).
53

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 57 of 60 PageID #: 57
210. The removal process is a benefit administered by DHS and Petitioner-Plaintiffs are entitled to participate in the removal process. The services, programs, and activities within the detention centers where DHS detains Petitioner-Plaintiffs receive substantial federal financial assistance.
211. Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ underlying medical conditions qualify as disabilities for purposes of the Rehabilitation Act. 29 U.S.C. § 705(2)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 12102.
212. By exposing them to a heightened risk of contracting COVID-19, Defendants are preventing Petitioner-Plaintiffs from participating in the removal process by reason of their disability.
213. By failing to take account of their special vulnerability to severe illness or death if they were to contract COVID-19, Defendants are preventing Petitioner-Plaintiffs from participating in the removal process by reason of their disability.
214. By failing to provide Petitioner-Plaintiffs adequate protection from COVID-19 through the only effective means to reduce the risk of severe illness or death, Defendants have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing the accomplishment of the objectives of removal proceedings and the services, programs, and activities within the detention centers with respect to Petitioner-Plaintiffs.
215. The only available “reasonable accommodation” that would mitigate PetitionerPlaintiffs’ disability is release from detention. Defendants have failed to implement this reasonable accommodation, which would not be unduly burdensome nor require a fundamental alteration in the removal process or the programs and activities of the detention center.
216. Defendants’ ongoing detention of Petitioner-Plaintiffs constitutes discrimination because it is either disparate treatment of, or at the very least has a disparate impact on, people
54

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 58 of 60 PageID #: 58
with qualifying disabilities who are at severe risk of serious illness or death if they were to contract COVID-19.
217. For these reasons, Defendants’ ongoing detention of Petitioner-Plaintiffs violates the Rehabilitation Act.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Petitioner-Plaintiffs request that this Court:
a. Issue a writ of habeas corpus and order Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ immediate release or placement in community-based alternatives to detention such as conditional release, with appropriate precautionary public health measures, on the ground that their continued detention violates the Due Process Clause and/or the Rehabilitation Act;
b. In the alternative, issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary and permanent injunctive relief ordering Defendants to immediately release Petitioner-Plaintiffs or place them in community-based alternatives to detention such as conditional release, with appropriate precautionary public health measures, on the ground that their continued detention violates the Due Process Clause and/or the Rehabilitation Act;
c. Declare that Defendants’ continued civil detention of individuals at increased risk for severe illness, including all people over the age of 50 and persons of any age with underlying medical conditions that increase the risk of serious illness or death upon contracting COVID-19 violates the Due Process Clause and/or the Rehabilitation Act;
d. Award Petitioner-Plaintiffs all costs incurred in maintaining this action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. § 504 and 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and on any other basis justified by law; and
55

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 59 of 60 PageID #: 59

e. proper.

Grant Petitioner-Plaintiffs any other and further relief this Court deems just and

Dated: April 13, 2020 New Orleans, Louisiana

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ William P. Quigley William P. Quigley, La Bar No. 07769 Quigley77@gmail.com LOYOLA LAW CLINIC 7214 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70118 504.710.3074
Sirine Shebaya* sirine@nipnlg.org Matthew S. Vogel, La. Bar No. 35363** matt@nipnlg.org NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD 2201 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20007 718.419.5876
Baher Azmy* bazmy@ccrjustice.org Ghita Schwarz* gschwarz@ccrjustice.org Angelo Guisado* aguisado@ccrjustice.org Guadalupe V. Aguirre* laguirre@ccrjustice.org Astha Sharma Pokharel* asharmapokharel@ccrjustice.org Brittany Thomas* bthomas@ccrjustice.org CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTSS 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 11201 212.614.6427
Andrew Free* Andrew@ImmigrantCivilRights.com LAW OFFICE OF R. ANDREW FREE
56

Case 1:20-cv-00458 Document 1 Filed 04/14/20 Page 60 of 60 PageID #: 60 P.O. Box 90568 Nashville, TN 37209 844.321.3221 x.1 Jeremy Jong* jermjong@gmail.com 3527 Banks Street New Orleans, LA 70119 504.475.6728 Counsel for Petitioner-Plaintiffs *pro hac vice applications forthcoming ** admission application pending
57

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 1 of 31 PageID #: 70

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DADA, et al.,

Petitioners-Plaintiffs,

Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-458

v. WITTE, et al.,

Judge Dee D. Drell Magistrate Judge Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes

Respondents-Defendants.

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 2 of 31 PageID #: 71

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1

FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................2

I.

COVID-19 Is an Unprecedented and Lethal Global Pandemic .....................................2

II.

COVID-19 is Exceedingly Dangerous for Individuals Like Plaintiffs, Who Have

Underlying Health Concerns..........................................................................................2

III.

Relevant ICE Detention Facilities Are Ticking Time Bombs; They Do Not, and

Cannot, Meet Public Health Standards to Prevent Widespread Infections....................4

IV.

ICE’s Response to COVID-19 Is Insufficient to Prevent the Spread of This Life-

Threatening Disease.......................................................................................................6

V.

The Consensus of Public Health Experts is That Individuals Most Vulnerable to

COVID-19 Should Immediately Be Released to Protect them From Serious Illness or

Death ..............................................................................................................................7

ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................................9

I. PLAINTIFFS WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM IN THE ABSENCE OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER...................................................................10

II. PLAINTIFFS ARE LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THEIR DUE PROCESS CLAIMS ......................................................................................................................................12

A. Plaintiffs’ Continued Detention Violates Their Due Process Right To Protection From Harm And To Be Free From Punitive Conditions .......................................12

1. Because They Are In Civil Detention, Plaintiffs Have a Right to be Free From Punitive Conditions Of Detention in ICE Detention Facilities .....12

B. Continuing Detention Constitutes Deliberate Indifference to a Substantial Risk of Serious Harm .........................................................................................................14

C. ICE Lacks A Constitutionally Adequate Purpose For Continued Detention.........17

D. Plaintiffs Are Likely To Prevail On Their Claim That Continued Detention Violates Procedural Due Process ...........................................................................18

III. THE BALANCE OF THE EQUITIES AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST TILTS SHARPLY IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS’ RELEASE ..............................................20

IV. IMMEDIATE RELEASE IS THE ONLY EFFECTIVE REMEDY FOR PLAINTIFFS’ UNLAWFUL DETENTION, WHICH THE COURT HAS AMPLE AUTHORITY TO ORDER .........................................................................................21

V. THE COURT SHOULD NOT REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS TO PROVIDE SECURITY PRIOR TO ISSUING A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ..........................24

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................25

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 3 of 31 PageID #: 72
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Basank, et. al. v. Decker, et al., No. 1:20-cv-02518-AT (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2020) .................... 16 Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) ............................................................................................ 13 Bianco v. Globus Med., Inc., No. 2:12-CV-00147-WCB, 2014 WL 1049067 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 17,
2014) ......................................................................................................................................... 21 Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) ................................................................................... 23 Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011)...................................................................................... 22, 23 Brown v. Taylor, 911 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 17 Cabral v. Decker, 331 F. Supp. 3d 255 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) ............................................................. 24 Calderon v. Cronen, No. 18-10225 (MLW) (D. Mass. Mar. 26, 2020) ....................................... 16 Castillo v. Barr, No. CV 20-00605 TJH (AFMx) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2020) .............................. 12 Chambers v. Coventry Health Care of Louisiana, Inc., 318 F. Supp. 2d 382 (E.D. La. 2004) .... 11 Cohen v. Coahoma Co., 805 F. Supp. 398 (N.D. Miss. 1992) ..................................................... 21 Cole v. Livingston, No. 4:14-CV-1698, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80345 (S.D. Tex. June 21, 2016)
................................................................................................................................................... 25 Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (1996) .................................................................................. 18 Corrigan Dispatch Company v. Casa Guzman, 569 F.2d 300 (5th Cir. 1978) ............................ 25 Coronel, et al. v. Decker, No. 1:20-cv-02472-AJN (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2020)..................... 16, 20 Daniels Health Scis., L.L.C. v. Vascular Health Scis., L.L.C., 710 F.3d 579 (5th Cir. 2013)...... 11 Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003) ..................................................................................... 18, 19 DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989)..................................... 12 DSC Commc’ns Corp. v. DGI Techs., Inc., 81 F.3d 597 (5th Cir. 1996) ..................................... 11 Duran v. Elrod, 713 F.2d 292 (7th Cir. 1983) .............................................................................. 23 Duvall v. Dallas Cty., Tex., 631 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2011)............................................................ 14 Edwards v. Johnson, 209 F.3d 772 (5th Cir. 2000) ...................................................................... 13 El Paso Cty., Texas v. Trump, 407 F. Supp. 3d 655 (W.D. Tex. 2019)........................................ 21 Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) ..................................................................................... 15 Flores v. Barr, No. CV 85-4544-DMG (AGRx) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2020)................................ 21 Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992)............................................................................... 13, 18 Fraihat v. Wolf, et. al., No. ED CV 20-00590 TJH (KSx) (C.D. Cal. Mar 30, 2020).................. 16 Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1974) ........................................................................... 15 Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................ 15 Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd. v. Pryor, 425 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2005) ...................... 21 Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss., 135 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. 1998)........................................... 12, 13, 15 Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153 (5th Cir. 1999) ....................................................................... 16 Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286 (1969) ................................................................................... 22, 23 Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993)................................................................................. 2, 15 Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2017)............................................................. 18, 22 Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987) .................................................................................... 23 In re Bahadur, No. EP-19-CV-00357-DCG, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33455 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 27,
2020) ......................................................................................................................................... 11 In re Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. 37 (BIA 2006)............................................................................... 20 In re Kumar, 402 F. Supp. 3d 377 (W.D. Tex. 2019)................................................................... 13 In the Matter of the Request to Commute or Suspend County Jail Sentences, Case No. 84230
(N.J. Mar. 22, 2020).................................................................................................................. 16

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 4 of 31 PageID #: 73
Ingebretsen v. Jackson Pub. Sch. Dist., 88 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 1996) ........................................... 21 Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972)...................................................................................... 17 Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468 (2d Cir. 1996) .............................................................................. 11 Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2004) ............................................................................. 13 Jones v. Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice, 880 F.3d 756 (5th Cir. 2018)...................................... 15 Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354 (1983) ................................................................................ 17 Kaepa, Inc. v. Achilles Corp., 76 F.3d 624 (5th Cir. 1996) .......................................................... 25 Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997)................................................................................... 18 Lake Charles Diesel, Inc. v. General Motors Corp, 328 F.3d 192 (5th Cir. 2003) ...................... 10 Leslie v. Holder, 865 F. Supp. 2d 627 (M.D. Pa. 2012) ............................................................... 24 Mapp v. Reno, 241 F.3d 221 (2d Cir. 2001) ................................................................................. 24 M.R. v. Dreyfus, 697 F.3d 706 (9th Cir. 2012) ............................................................................. 11 Malam v. Adducci, et al., No. 2:20-cv-10829-JEL-APP (E.D. Mich. Apr. 5, 2020).................... 23 Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976)............................................................................. 19, 20 Matter of Extradition of Toledo Manrique, No. 19MJ71055MAG1TSH, 2020 WL 1307109
(N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2020) ............................................................................................... 7, 16, 24 Mobile Cty. Jail Inmates v. Purvis, 581 F. Supp. 222 (S.D. Ala. 1984)....................................... 24 Monumental Task Comm., Inc. v. Foxx, 157 F. Supp. 3d 573 (E.D. La. 2016)............................ 11 Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) ........................................................................................... 21 O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975) ............................................................................. 17 Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs, Miss., 697 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2012) .................... 12 Orantes-Hernandez v. Smith, 541 F. Supp. 351 (C.D. Cal. 1982)................................................ 25 Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................. 21 Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933 (5th Cir. 1976) .................................................................. 23 Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Gee, 862 F.3d 445 (5th Cir. 2017) ........................... 21 Poree v. Collins, 866 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2017)....................................................................... 22, 23 Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993) ............................................................................................ 20 Sanchez v. Winfrey, No. CIV.A.SA04CA0293RFNN, 2004 WL 1118718 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 28,
2004) ......................................................................................................................................... 24 Shepherd v. Dallas Cty., 591 F.3d 445 (5th Cir. 2009) .......................................................... 13, 14 Thakker, et. al. v. Doll, et. al., No 1:20-cv-00480-JEJ (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2020) ....................... 16 U.S. v. Barkman, No. 3:19-cr-0052-RCJ-WGC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45628 (D. Nev. Mar. 17,
2020) ......................................................................................................................................... 21 Umana Jovel v. Thomas Decker, et al., No. 1:20-cv-00308-GBD-SN (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2020)
............................................................................................................................................. 16, 20 United States v. Martin, No. 19 Cr. 140-13, 2020 WL 1274857 (D. Md. Mar. 17, 2020) ........... 16 United States v. Raihan, No. 20-cr-68-BMC- JO (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2020)............................... 24 United States v. Stephens, No. 15-cr-95 (AJN), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47846 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.
18, 2020) ................................................................................................................................... 24 Unknown Parties v. Johnson, No. CV-15-00250-TUC (DCBx), 2016 WL 8188563 (D. Ariz. No.
18, 2016) ................................................................................................................................... 11 Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) ......................................................................... 18 Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249 (1971) .............................................................................. 23 Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, No. 18-71460 (9th Cir. Mar. 23, 2020)......................................... 16, 24 Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982) .................................................................................. 13 Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) .......................................................................... 18, 19, 20

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 5 of 31 PageID #: 74
Statutes 28 U.S.C. § 2241..................................................................................................................... 10, 22 28 U.S.C. § 2243..................................................................................................................... 22, 23 42 U.S.C. § 1983........................................................................................................................... 22 Rules Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 .................................................................................. 22, 23, 24

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 6 of 31 PageID #: 75
INTRODUCTION Today’s global pandemic of the COVID-19 virus is the worst the world has seen since 1918. Public health experts have admonished that the only effective way to reduce the risk of severe illness or death for vulnerable individuals is sustained social distancing and vigilant hygiene. Such measures are impossible to achieve in crowded detention centers. For this reason, health care professionals – including two of the Department of Homeland Security’s own medical experts – have urgently called for the release of detained immigrants, particularly elderly or medically vulnerable ones.1 Yet, Respondent-Defendants (“Defendants”) continue to detain thousands of individuals in Louisiana facilities and across the country, including those at severe risk of serious illness or death, despite the ready availability of release, including under community-based alternatives to detention. Petitioner-Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) are sixteen individuals detained in Louisiana and who, due to their age and pre-existing medical conditions, are particularly vulnerable to serious illness or death if infected by COVID-19. While detained, it will be impossible to engage in necessary social distancing practices to protect themselves and others; they are vulnerable to infection because they eat, sleep and otherwise comingle in tight proximity to others and because sanitary conditions in these facilities is poor, lacking sufficient, basic supplies of soap and hand sanitizer. Even with the measures ICE is attempting so as to limit the spread of COVID-19, immigration detention centers are a hotbed for spread of the virus, which broadly endangers public health and will strain vulnerable hospital systems. For at-risk individuals like Plaintiffs, protection from the virus is a matter of life or death. The danger posed by Plaintiffs’ continued detention during the COVID-19 pandemic is “so grave that it violates contemporary standards of decency to
1 Catherine E. Shoichet, Doctors Warn of 'Tinderbox Scenario' if Coronavirus Spreads in ICE Detention, CNN, Mar. 20, 2020, available at https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/20/health/doctors-ice-detention-coronavirus/index.html.
1

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 7 of 31 PageID #: 76
expose anyone unwillingly to such a risk” and violates their constitutional right to safety in government custody. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 36 (1993). Without this Court’s intervention, Plaintiffs will continue to face the imminent risk of severe illness or death. Release – which this Court, like many others who have already acted, is fully authorized to order – is the only meaningful way to protect Plaintiffs from grave, irreparable harm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND I. COVID-19 Is an Unprecedented and Lethal Global Pandemic.
COVID-19 is a highly contagious disease that is easily transmitted through respiratory droplets, especially when one is within six feet of an infected individual. Meyer Decl. ¶20. It can result in severe and widespread damage to lungs, heart, liver, or other organs. In many cases, COVID-19 results in death. Id. ¶21. A patient’s condition can seriously deteriorate within days.2
Those who develop serious complications will need advanced medical support. Id. ¶22. This level of support is especially difficult to provide for detained individuals. See id. ¶¶16, 3233. The need for advanced medical care and the likelihood of death are much greater from COVID19 infection than from influenza. See Id. ¶19.
There is no vaccine against COVID-19, nor any known medication to prevent or treat infection from the virus. Id. ¶ 19. The only effective measure to reduce the risk of infection and thus severe illness or death to vulnerable individuals is to enforce regular social distancing (remaining physically separated from known or potentially infected individuals) and vigilant hygiene, including frequently washing hands with soap and water. See Id. ¶¶9-12.
II. COVID-19 is Exceedingly Dangerous for Individuals Like Plaintiffs, Who Have Underlying Health Concerns.
2 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Clinical Presentation” Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) (Mar. 31, 2020) available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-patients.html.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 8 of 31 PageID #: 77
Older individuals and those with certain medical conditions face greater chances of serious
illness or death from COVID-19. Id. ¶¶ 21. Certain underlying medical conditions increase the risk
of serious COVID-19 disease for individuals of any age, including but not limited to lung disease,
chronic liver or kidney disease, diabetes, epilepsy, hypertension, compromised immune systems,
blood disorders, inherited metabolic disorders, stroke, and pregnancy. Id.; Bazzano Decl. ¶8.
Individuals detained in immigration detention centers, including those in the New Orleans Field
Office area of responsibility, are also more susceptible to experiencing complications from
infectious diseases than the population at large. Meyer Decl. ¶14. This is especially true for the
following Plaintiffs, with underlying conditions such as diabetes, lung disease, kidney disease, or
other illness. Id. ¶13.
● Tatalu Helen Dada suffers from asthma, Grave’s Disease, hypothyroidism, hypertension, malnutrition, and vision loss, and has been hospitalized numerous times due to her rapidly deteriorating health all putting her at a high risk of severe complications or death if she contracts COVID-19. Bazzano Decl. ¶b. She has a place to live if released. Compl. ¶ 22.
● Matilde Flores de Saavedra is 78 and suffers from uncontrolled diabetes and hypertension which puts her at high risk of severe illness or death if she contracts COVID-19. Bazzano Decl. ¶d. She has a place to live if released. Compl. ¶23.
● Sirous Asgari is 59 years old, and suffers from chronic lung conditions, hypertension, and liver disease. His medical conditions put him at high risk of severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. Bazzano Decl. ¶i. He has a place to live if released. Compl. ¶24.
● Suresh Kumar suffers from Hepatitis C, malnutrition, and chronic pain, and is immunocompromised. His medical conditions put him at high risk of severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. Bazzano Decl. ¶e. He has a place to live if released. Compl. ¶30.
● Pardeep Kumar suffers from malnutrition, is immunocompromised, and has failing kidneys. These medical conditions put him at high risk of severe illness or death if he contracts COVID19. Bazzano Decl. ¶f. He has a place to live if released. Compl. ¶31.
● Rosabel Carrera is 59 years old and suffers from diabetes. She also has a history of stroke and suffers from heart disease, hypertension, arthritis, and vision loss. She is at high risk of severe illness or death if she contracts COVID-19. Bazzano Decl. ¶a. She has a place to live if released. Compl. ¶26.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 9 of 31 PageID #: 78
● Sonia Lemus Tejada Dejaso suffers from heart disease and hypertension, putting her at a high risk of severe illness or death if she contracts COVID-19. Bazzano Decl. ¶c. She has a place to live if released. Compl. ¶27.
● Griselda Del Bosque is 59 years old and suffers from severe asthma putting her at high risk of severe illness or death if she contracts COVID-19. Bazzano Decl. ¶h She has a place to live if released. Compl. ¶28.
● Nadira Sampath Grant suffers from diabetes and diabetic related complications such as neuropathy and issues with her kidneys putting her at high risk of severe illness or death is she contracts COVID-19. Bazzano Decl. ¶g. She has a place to live if released. Compl. ¶29.
● Abraham Gebremedhin Gebremichael suffers from bradycardia, a heart condition that leaves his body without sufficient oxygen, which puts him at high risk of severe illness or death is he contracts COVID-19. Bazzano Decl. ¶o. He has a place to live if released. Compl. ¶32.
● Hasan Saleh suffers from hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol and blood clots, and is 62 years old. His age and medical conditions put him at high risk of severe illness or death is he contracts COVID-19. Bazzano Decl. ¶j. He has a place to live if released. Compl. ¶35.
● Rolando Alex Colon suffers from hypertension and high cholesterol, putting him at high risk of severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. Bazzano Decl. ¶k. He has a place to live if released. Compl. ¶33.
● Karthikeyan Ponnusamy suffers from hypertension, diabetes, and Low Lactate Dehydrogenase, putting him at high risk of severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. Bazzano Decl. ¶p. He has a place to live if released. Compl. ¶34.
● Aracelio Rodriguez suffers from severe asthma, putting him at high risk of severe illness or death is he contracts COVID-19. Bazzano Decl. ¶n. He has a place to live if released. Compl. ¶36.
● Desmond Nkobenei suffers from hypertension, putting him at high risk of severe illness or death is he contracts COVID-19. Bazzano Decl. ¶m. He has a place to live if released. Compl. ¶37.
● Eduardo Devora Espinosa suffers from hypertension and diabetes, putting him at high risk of severe illness or death is he contracts COVID-19. Bazzano Decl. ¶l. He has a place to live if released. Compl. ¶25.
III. Relevant ICE Detention Facilities Are Ticking Time Bombs; They Do Not, and Cannot, Meet Public Health Standards to Prevent Widespread Infections.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 10 of 31 PageID #: 79
The LaSalle, Winn, Jackson, Catahoula, Pine Prairie, and Richwood facilities are located in Louisiana.3 As of April 13, 2020, there were nearly 21,100 COVID-19 cases in Louisiana, and over 880 deaths.4 These data include cases in all of the parishes in which these facilities are located.
Detention centers present a particularly high risk of outbreaks, which is exemplified by the skyrocketing numbers of cases in New York City jails. Meyer Decl. ¶¶7-17. The only effective way to prevent infection is to practice proper hygiene and, crucially, social distancing: maintaining a distance of at least six feet between oneself and others. Id. ¶¶11, 20. But several Plaintiffs describe conditions in these facilities that render it impossible to practice social distancing: many sleep in dorms that they share with over 50 other individuals, in beds—sometimes double- or triplebunk beds—that are well under six feet apart, in some cases less than two feet apart (Dada Decl. ¶¶15-16; del Bosque Decl. ¶8; Flores de Saavedra ¶5; Carrera Decl. ¶10; Asgari Decl. ¶18; Sampath Grant Decl. ¶6; Nkobenei Decl. ¶ 4; Rodriguez Decl. ¶13; Gebremichael Decl. ¶10; ; Obser Decl. ¶¶13-15; Ponnusamy Decl. ¶10). They share bathrooms and dining halls (Id.), and in one case forty-four men share one shower. Asgari Decl. ¶18. To make matters worse, Defendants have not adopted adequate mitigation measures: the staff at detention centers do not wear masks or gloves (Dada Decl. ¶¶15-16; del Bosque Decl. ¶5; Flores de Saavedra Decl. ¶7; Carrera Decl. ¶11; Suresh Kumar Decl. ¶8;Sampath Grant Decl. ¶5; Saleh Decl. ¶6), and Plaintiffs do not have adequate access to soap or hand sanitizer (Sampath Grant Decl. ¶5; del Bosque Decl. ¶7; Dada Decl. ¶16; Gebremichael Decl. ¶11; Rodriguez Decl. ¶17; Tejada Dejaso Decl. ¶9; Ponnusamy Decl. ¶9). Richwood, in particular, even prohibits staff from wearing personal protective equipment. Nochomovitz Decl. ¶16. Plaintiffs also describe instances where individuals
3 Detention Facility Locator, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, available at https://www.ice.gov/detention-facilities. 4 Louisiana Department of Health, Coronavirus (COVID-19) (Apr. 13, 2020), http://ldh.la.gov/coronavirus/.
5

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 11 of 31 PageID #: 80
who are ill – including those presenting symptoms consistent with COVID-19 – are not tested or given adequate medical care. Sampath Grant Decl. ¶ 7; del Bosque Decl. ¶ 9; Dada Decl. ¶ 15; Gebremichael Decl. ¶12.
COVID-19 has already reached at least some of the immigration detention centers in Louisiana. Huber Decl. ¶10. Dorms at Pine Prairie, Winn, and Basile are currently under indefinite quarantine. Id. Pine Prairie has two confirmed COVID-19 cases, and both Winn and Richwood each have one as well. At least 11 staff members and 6 detained persons have so far tested positive for COVID-19 at Louisiana ICE facilities.5 There is an immediate and impending threat that COVID-19 will become widespread in these detention centers. In fact, in the absence of widespread testing, there is no way to be certain that infection is not already present across other facilities. Once one person in a detention facility contracts the virus, it spreads quickly because individuals in detention centers live, sleep, eat, and use the bathroom in close proximity with others, which “make it difficult if not impossible to contain transmission.” Bazzano Decl. ¶14. And, given the daily entry of staff and guards from the community, and the continued influx and transfer of dozens of new people into detention facilities on a daily or weekly basis, see, e.g., Asgari Decl. ¶¶ 13, 17; Sampath Grant Decl. ¶7; del Bosque Decl. ¶9; Nkobenei Decl. ¶7; Nochomovitz Decl. ¶14, it is only a short matter of time before the disease becomes widespread throughout all of these detention centers.
IV. ICE’s Response to COVID-19 Is Insufficient to Prevent the Spread of This LifeThreatening Disease.
As these conditions show, Defendants have not and cannot ensure mitigation of COVID19 in ICE detention facilities. Bazzano Decl. ¶15. While ICE policy is to test and isolate those who are at high epidemiologic risk, this is insufficient: not everyone who contracts the virus is
5 ICE COVID-19 Guidance, https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus (Apr. 13, 2020).
6

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 12 of 31 PageID #: 81
symptomatic, and few detention centers have negative pressure rooms, which are required to prevent spread of the virus from the isolated individual’s room to others. Meyer Decl. ¶14; Matter of Extradition of Toledo Manrique, No. 19MJ71055MAG1TSH, 2020 WL 1307109, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2020) (“symptoms of COVID-19 can begin to appear 2-14 days after exposure, so screening people based on observable symptoms is just a game of catch up”).
Further, although ICE has temporarily suspended social visitation in all detention facilities, staff, contractors, and vendors continue to arrive and leave the detention centers.6 Meyer Decl. ¶ 8. Detained individuals are also frequently transported to, from, and between facilities. Id. Given the general lack of available testing, it is impossible for detention facilities to consistently and adequately screen detained persons and staff for new, asymptomatic infection. Id. ¶30. Anything short of aggressive screening and testing of detained individuals, staff, officials and other care and service providers who enter the facility is insufficient to prevent infection. Neither ICE nor the Louisiana detention facilities have the resources necessary to engage in such an effort. Id. ¶¶2530; Bazzano Decl. ¶ 15.
Importantly, the COVID-19 pandemic—and ICE’s unsatisfactory response to it—will significantly strain ICE’s already broken medical care system, while the medical system in surrounding areas is expected to soon be overloaded, significantly reducing the capacity to provide emergency, life-saving medical care to all. Bazzano Decl. ¶¶ 7-9. Long before the COVID-19 outbreak, numerous reports (including by DHS itself) have identified serious and substantial flaws in ICE’s medical care system. Compl. ¶¶138-42.
V. The Consensus of Public Health Experts is That Individuals Most Vulnerable to COVID-19 Should Immediately Be Released to Protect them From Serious Illness or Death.
6 ICE Guidance on COVID-19, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, available at https://www.ice.gov/covid19.
7

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 13 of 31 PageID #: 82
Public health experts with experience in immigration detention have recommended the release of vulnerable individuals. Two DHS medical experts sent a letter to Congress warning of the severe public health risks of keeping individuals detained and recommending release of most persons in immigration detention.7 A former Acting Director of ICE has stated that ICE “can, and must, reduce the risk [COVID-19] poses to so many people, and the most effective way to do so is to drastically reduce the number of people it is currently holding.”12
Releasing the most vulnerable people, such as Plaintiffs, would also reduce the burden on regional hospitals and health centers. Meyer Decl. ¶¶16, 35-37. In case of an outbreak at a detention center, those institutions would bear the brunt of having to treat infected individuals from detention centers and would have fewer medical resources available for the general population. Id. ¶16. Governments worldwide have recognized the threat posed by the spread of COVID-19 among detained and incarcerated populations and have released detained persons in response. For example, Iran temporarily released more than 70,000 people to curb the spread of the virus. Id. ¶ 24. In the United States, several jurisdictions including Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago have also released detained individuals for the same reasons, as has New Orleans. Compl. ¶154. On March 22, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a consent order for the presumptive release of approximately 1,000 persons by March 26. And on April 2, 2020, the Chief Justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court offered guidance on reducing the jail population, encouraging district court judges to release detained persons because a coronavirus outbreak in jails and prisons would be “catastrophic for jail staff, the families of jail staff, and inmates.”8
7 Letter from Dr. Scott Allen and Dr. Josiah Rich, to House Comm. on Homeland Sec., Mar. 19, 2020, available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6816336-032020-Letter-From-Drs-Allen-Rich-to-CongressRe.html#document/p4/a557238; Catherine Shoichet, Doctors Warn of “Tinderbox Scenario” If Coronavirus Spreads in ICE Detention, CNN.com, Mar. 20, 2020, available at https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/20/health/doctorsice-detention-coronavirus/index.html. 8 Chief Justice Bernette Joshua Johnson, Letter To the Louisiana District Judges, April 2, 2020, available at ttps://www.lasc.org/COVID19/2020-04-02-LASC-ChiefLetterReCOVID-19andjailpopulation.pdf; see also Javonti
8

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 14 of 31 PageID #: 83
Dr. Meyer has concluded that “[r]educing the size of the population in jails and prisons can be crucially important to reducing the level or risk both for those within those facilities and for the community at large. Meyer Decl. ¶35. Dr. Meyer recommends “that individuals who are already in [ICE facilities] be evaluated for release,” and that “[t]his is more important still for individuals with preexisting conditions… or who are over the age of 65.” Id. ¶¶ 35-36. In light of Plaintiffs’ medical conditions, Dr. Bazzano has determined that Plaintiffs face a substantial risk of severe illness or death as a result of continued detention. Bazzano Decl. ¶¶ a-p.
ARGUMENT Under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a movant is entitled to temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo—here, the health and lives of Plaintiffs—by showing: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims for relief; (2) a substantial threat of in irreparable injury absent the injunction; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs any damage that injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) that the injunction will not disserve public interest. Lake Charles Diesel, Inc. v. General Motors Corp, 328 F.3d 192, 195 (5th Cir. 2003). The Court likewise has wholly independent authority under habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, to order immediate release from unconstitutional confinement. There is voluminous evidence in the record showing that Plaintiffs are particularly vulnerable to severe illness and death, through highly likely exposure to the surging COVID-19 virus. The evidence demonstrating the serious risk they face to their health, including a risk of death, constitutes the clearest form of irreparable harm that the law recognizes. In contrast, Defendants can identify no sufficiently countervailing interest in continuing to subject those in
Thomas, Louisiana Chief Justice calls for reduced jail populations to combat COVID-19 outbreak, KALB, April 3, 2020, available at https://www.kalb.com/content/news/Louisiana-Chief-Justice-calls-for-reduced-jail-populationsto-avoid-COVID-19-outbreak--569348241.html
9

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 15 of 31 PageID #: 84
civil immigration detention to such a grave health risk. In the last two weeks, dozens of courts have recognized as much and ordered detained persons released. Because subjecting persons in civil immigration detention to such dangerous conditions of confinement is punitive as well as recklessly indifferent to the known risks Plaintiffs face, and because continued detention in the face of such risks serves no legitimate nonpunitive government interest, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their substantive due process claims. And, because Plaintiffs face severe practical limitations on counsel access and procedures such as a bond hearing to vindicate their fundamental right to be free from unjustified detention, they are likely to succeed on their procedural due process claim.
Detaining these vulnerable individuals for civil immigration purposes contrary to expert consensus that they face substantial risk of illness or death represents the height of arbitrary detention and compels judicial intervention. Plaintiffs’ lives are at stake. I. PLAINTIFFS WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM IN THE ABSENCE OF A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER “Perhaps the single most important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary injunction is a demonstration that if it is not granted the applicant is likely to suffer irreparable harm before a decision on the merits can be rendered.” Monumental Task Comm., Inc. v. Foxx, 157 F. Supp. 3d 573, 582–83 (E.D. La. 2016), aff’d sub nom. Monumental Task Comm., Inc. v. Chao, 678 F. App’x 250 (5th Cir. 2017) (quotations omitted). The Fifth Circuit requires only a “substantial threat” of irreparable injury, DSC Commc’ns Corp. v. DGI Techs., Inc., 81 F.3d 597, 600 (5th Cir.1996), which is defined as “harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law,” such as monetary damages. Daniels Health Scis., L.L.C. v. Vascular Health Scis., L.L.C., 710 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir. 2013).
10

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 16 of 31 PageID #: 85
Without emergency relief from this Court, Plaintiffs face a substantial threat of imminent and irreparable injury, including death—harms no court can otherwise remediate. See In re Bahadur, No. EP-19-CV-00357-DCG, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33455, at *14 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2020); Chambers v. Coventry Health Care of Louisiana, Inc., 318 F. Supp. 2d 382 (E.D. La. 2004) (irreparable harm found where late detection of cancer could lead to death). Short of death, Plaintiffs are at grave risk of contracting severe and potentially lifelong medical conditions, which also establishes irreparable harm. See, e.g., M.R. v. Dreyfus, 697 F.3d 706, 729 (9th Cir. 2012); Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468, 482 (2d Cir. 1996); see also Unknown Parties v. Johnson, No. CV15-00250-TUC (DCBx), 2016 WL 8188563, at *15 (D. Ariz. No. 18, 2016), aff’d sub nom Doe v. Kelly, 878 F.3d 710 (9th Cir. 2017) (irreparable harm where evidence demonstrated “medical risks associated with . . . being exposed to communicable diseases”).
Given their age and medical vulnerabilities, even those Plaintiffs who survive COVID-19 are likely to suffer lifelong ailments including neurologic damage and the loss of respiratory capacity, and may require extensive rehabilitation or profound reconditioning. And, short of release, there are no sufficient measures—preventative or palliative—that Defendants can implement to protect Plaintiffs, from crowded, unsanitary conditions. Bazzano Decl. ¶¶16-18. Medical experts conclude that COVID-19 poses unprecedented threats to the safety of these individuals—and those who come in contact with them, including ICE staff, healthcare providers, and local populations—and must be released. Meyer Decl. ¶¶35-37; Bazzano Decl. ¶¶16-18.
Plaintiffs can also demonstrate irreparable harm through a showing, see infra Section II, that Defendants have violated their constitutional rights. See Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs, Miss., 697 F.3d 279, 295 (5th Cir. 2012); Castillo v. Barr, CV 20-00605 TJH (AFMx), ECF No. 32, at 9 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2020) (concluding that “[a] civil detainee’s constitutional
11

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 17 of 31 PageID #: 86
rights are violated if a condition of his confinement places him at substantial risk of suffering
serious harm, such as the harm caused by a pandemic”).
II. PLAINTIFFS ARE LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THEIR DUE PROCESS CLAIMS
A. Plaintiffs’ Continued Detention Violates Their Due Process Right To Protection From Harm And To Be Free From Punitive Conditions.
When the State holds individuals in its custody, the Constitution imposes an obligation to
provide for their basic human needs, including medical care and reasonable safety. DeShaney v.
Winnebago Cty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 199–200 (1989).
The rationale for this principle is simple enough: when the State by the affirmative exercise of its power so restrains an individual's liberty that it renders him unable to care for himself, and at the same time fails to provide for his basic human needs—e.g., food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable safety—it transgresses the substantive limits on state action set by the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause.
Id. (citations omitted); accord Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss., 135 F.3d 320, 326 (5th Cir. 1998).
1. Because They Are In Civil Detention, Plaintiffs Have a Right to be Free From Punitive Conditions Of Detention in ICE Detention Facilities.
A person in civil immigration detention has due process rights that are, at a minimum,
similar to those of a person detained in pretrial detention prior to an adjudication of guilt, Edwards v. Johnson, 209 F.3d 772, 778 (5th Cir. 2000).9 At a minimum, due process mandates that those in
civil detention not be punished. Hare, 74 F.3d at 639. See also Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71,
80 (1992). Where the Eighth Amendment protects individuals in prison from punishment that rises
9 Some courts have held that individuals in immigration detention have greater protections than those in pretrial detention because they rarely implicate penological interests associated with criminal confinement or suspicion. In re Kumar, 402 F. Supp. 3d 377, 384 (W.D. Tex. 2019); Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 933 (9th Cir. 2004). The Kumar court applied the Youngberg civil commitment standard to the immigration detention context, which asks whether “defendants’ conduct was ‘such a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards in the care and treatment of this plaintiff.’” Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 314 (1982). There can be no professional medical or penological judgment that could reasonably support the continued detention of elderly and/or medically compromised individuals in immigration detention in crowded, precarious conditions that subject them to a certain risk of contagion, illness or death.
12

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 18 of 31 PageID #: 87
to “cruel and unusual,” the Due Process Clause protects individuals in detention from any punishment. Therefore, persons in civil immigration detention are entitled to “more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish.” Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 322.
A condition of detention amounts to impermissible punishment when “it is not reasonably related to a legitimate goal,” if it is “excessive” in relation to a legitimate goal,” or if it is otherwise “arbitrary or purposeless”—a court permissibly may infer that the purpose of the governmental action is punishment that may not constitutionally be inflicted upon detainees qua detainees.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 539 (1979); Hare, 74 F.3d at 640. To make this showing, an individual in detention need not demonstrate the defendant’s subjective or malicious intent to punish. Shepherd v. Dallas Cty., 591 F.3d 445, 452 (5th Cir. 2009). “[E]ven where a State may not want to subject a detainee to inhumane conditions of confinement or abusive jail practices, its intent to do so is nevertheless presumed when it incarcerates the detainee in the face of such known conditions and practices.” Hare, 74 F.3d at 644. “A pervasive pattern of serious deficiencies” that subjects an individual in detention to the risk of serious injury or death likewise amounts to punishment. Shepherd, 591 F.3d at 454.
In Shepherd, the Fifth Circuit found that a “jail’s evaluation, monitoring, and treatment of inmates with chronic illness was [...] grossly inadequate due to poor or non-existent procedures and understaffing of guards and medical personnel,” that “serious injury and death were the inevitable results of the jail's gross inattention to the needs of inmates with chronic illness,” and that this amounted to punishment. Shepherd., 591 F.3d at 454. Similarly, in Duvall, the Fifth Circuit affirmed a jury’s finding that Dallas County had an unconstitutionally punitive custom or policy when it allowed infections of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) to be
13

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 19 of 31 PageID #: 88
present in a jail, and failed to take necessary measures for eradication. Duvall v. Dallas Cty., Tex., 631 F.3d 203, 208-209 (5th Cir. 2011).
Given the cramped, unsanitary, and irremediable conditions in ICE detention facilities, Plaintiffs face a demonstrably substantial risk of contracting COVID-19. Once they are exposed, they are all vulnerable to severe illness or death, either because of their age, or because they have underlying medical conditions, including: asthma, heart disease, compromised immune system, chronic renal issues, liver disease, susceptibility to lung disease, and diabetes. Continued detention of Plaintiffs is an imminent threat to their lives that is clearly excessive in relation to any purported government goal, and therefore amounts to punishment.
B. Continuing Detention Constitutes Deliberate Indifference to a Substantial Risk of Serious Harm.
In addition to affirmatively imposing punitive conditions of confinement, supra Section II(A)(2), an official violates the Due Process Clause if the official has “acted or failed to act with deliberate indifference to the detainee's needs.” Hare, 74 F.3d at 648.10 Courts find deliberate indifference when a detained person can show: (1) “that he is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm,” and (2) “that the official was deliberately indifferent to inmate health or safety.” Hare, 74 F.3d at 648 (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994)). Under the second prong, the Fifth Circuit asks whether the official “knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.” Jones v. Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice, 880 F.3d 756, 759 (5th Cir. 2018). The Fifth Circuit holds that a detained person “does not need to show that death or serious illness has yet occurred to obtain relief. He must show that the conditions pose a substantial risk of harm.” Gates v. Cook,
10 Any condition that violates the Eighth Amendment rights individuals who are in prison, necessarily amounts to punishment of individuals in civil immigration detention and thereby violates the due process rights of Plaintiffs.
14

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 20 of 31 PageID #: 89
376 F.3d 323, 339 (5th Cir. 2004) (emphasis added). In Gates, where individuals on Death Row challenged overheated temperatures as violating the Eighth Amendment, the Fifth Circuit upheld a finding that the plaintiffs faced a substantial risk of serious harm based on expert testimony substantiating a likelihood of death. Cook, 376 F.3d at 339. But showing a likelihood of actual death is not required. As the Supreme Court ruled, housing individuals in crowded conditions where they are at risk of infectious disease is unconstitutional even when it “is not alleged that the likely harm would occur immediately and even though the possible infection might not affect all of those exposed,” and prison officials cannot be “deliberately indifferent to the exposure of inmates to a serious, communicable disease on the ground that the complaining inmate shows no serious current symptoms.” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993). See also Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1300 (5th Cir. 1974) (prison conditions, including the fact that “inmates with serious contagious diseases are allowed to mingle with the general prison population,” violate the Eighth Amendment).
In light of their age and medical vulnerability, and the impossibility of enforcing appropriate social distancing and sanitation measures, see supra, Factual Background Sec. II-V, Plaintiffs’ continued detention puts them at substantial risk of serious harm. Numerous courts across the country sitting in jurisdictions with palpable COVID-spread—only days ahead of Louisiana’s—have recognized the heightened risk to individuals in detention and have ordered their release.11 Louisiana has had the fastest COVID-19 spread rate of any region in the world. Compl. ¶97. The substantial risk of serious harm to individuals in detention is imminent.
11 See, e.g., Thakker, et. al. v. Doll, et. al., No 1:20-cv-00480-JEJ (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2020); Fraihat v. Wolf, et. al., ED CV 20-00590 TJH (KSx) (C.D. Cal. Mar 30, 2020); Coronel, et al. v. Decker, No. 1:20-cv-02472-AJN (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2020); Calderon v. Cronen, No. 18-10225 (MLW), ECF. 507 (D. Mass. Mar. 26, 2020); Umana Jovel v. Thomas Decker, et al., No. 1:20-cv-00308-GBD-SN (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2020); Basank, et. al. v. Decker, et al., No. 1:20-cv-02518-AT, (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2020); Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 18-71460, Doc. No. 53 (9th Cir. Mar. 23, 2020); In the Matter of the Request to Commute or Suspend County Jail Sentences, Case No. 84230 (N.J.
15

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 21 of 31 PageID #: 90
Defendants have actual knowledge of this substantial risk and are deliberately indifferent
to it. The risk of COVID-19 to the health and lives of medically vulnerable individuals is front-
page national and local news on a daily basis and, at this point, utterly obvious. See Harris v.
Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 159 (5th Cir. 1999) (“A prison official’s knowledge of a substantial risk
of harm may be inferred by the obviousness of the substantial risk”). ICE’s Guidance on COVID-
19 recognizes these risks, and ICE’s prohibition on social visitation demonstrates a recognition of
the importance of social distancing.12 Medical experts from within DHS itself have described the
risk of this virus to those in immigration detention.13 ICE has received numerous letters from
experts, Members of Congress, and non-governmental organizations alerting it to the risk of
COVID-19.14 Persons in immigration detention have protested against the conditions that render
them vulnerable during this pandemic.15 The World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for
Disease Control have emphasized the risk of this disease, its infectiousness, and its severity in
those with underlying medical conditions.16 There are daily news articles about the death toll of
Mar. 22, 2020).; Matter of Extradition of Toledo Manrique, No. 19 MJ 71055, 2020 WL 1307109, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2020); United States v. Martin, No. 19 Cr. 140-13, 2020 WL 1274857, at *2 (D. Md. Mar. 17, 2020). 12 ICE Guidance on COVID-19, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, https://www.ice.gov/covid19. 13 Catherine E. Shoichet, Doctors warn of 'tinderbox scenario' if coronavirus spreads in ICE detention, CNN, Mar. 20, 2020, available at https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/20/health/doctors-ice-detention-coronavirus/index.html. 14 Letter from 763 non-governmental organizations to Matthew T. Albence, Acting Director of ICE, Mar. 19, 2020, available at https://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/sites/default/files/ICE%20Response%20to%20Coronavirus%20for%20Peo ple%20Detained%20-%20Organizational%20Sign%20on%20Letter%20-%20Final.pdf; Letter from Rep. Carolyn Maloney and Rep. Jamie Raskin to Acting Secretary of DHS Chad Wolf (Mar. 11, 2020), available at https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2020-0311.CBM%20and%20JR%20to%20Wolf-DHS%20re%20COVID-19.pdf. 15 Alejandro Lazo, Protests, Hunger Strikes Erupt Over Coronavirus in Immigration Detention. The Wall Street Journal, Mar. 27, 2020, available at https://www.wsj.com/articles/protests-hunger-strikes-erupt-over-coronavirus-inimmigration-detention-11585320903; Debbie Nathan, Women in ICE Detention, Fearing Coronavirus, Make Video to Protest Unsafe Conditions, The Intercept (Mar. 30, 2020), available at https://theintercept.com/2020/03/30/coronavirus-ice-detention/. 16 Information for Healthcare Professionals: COVID-19 and Underlying Conditions, Center for Disease Control (accessed Mar. 27, 2020), available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/underlying-conditions.html; Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report – 51, World Health Organization (accessed Mar. 31, 2020), available at https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200311-sitrep-51-covid19.pdf?sfvrsn=1ba62e57_4.
16

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 22 of 31 PageID #: 91
COVID-19 and its impact on those with underlying medical conditions, particularly those in detention.17 In the face of this overwhelming evidenced Defendants continued detention of Plaintiffs amounts to deliberate indifference.
C. ICE Lacks A Constitutionally Adequate Purpose For Continued Detention. Non-criminal confinement “constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty that requires due
process protection,” and, thus, the government “must have ‘a constitutionally adequate purpose for the confinement.’” Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354, 361 (1983) (quoting O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 574 (1975)). Accordingly, courts must ensure that the nature and duration of confinement bear “some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed.” Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 738 (1972); Brown v. Taylor, 911 F.3d 235, 243 (5th Cir. 2018). Once a valid basis for detention no longer exists, substantive due process requires the state to release the person. Foucha, 504 U.S. at 86 (ordering petitioner’s release from commitment to mental institution because there was no longer any evidence of mental illness); accord Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 363-64 (1997).
Continuing to detain Plaintiffs in conditions that impose a substantial risk of illness or death eviscerates any legitimate purpose for their detention. The Supreme Court has held hat immigration detention is permissible to ensure the immigrant’s participation in their removal proceedings, to prevent flight, and to otherwise protect the community. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001); Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 528 (2003). For individuals who are at high risk for serious illness or death from COVID-19, protection from the virus is a matter of life or
17 See, e.g., Abigail Hauslohner, Nick Miroff & Matt Zapotosky, Coronavirus Could Pose Serious Concern in ICE Jails, Immigration Courts, The Washington Post, Mar. 12, 2020, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/coronavirus-immigration-jails/2020/03/12/44b5e56a-646a-11ea845de35b0234b136_story.html; Josiah Rich, Scott Allen & Mavis Noah, We Must Release Prisoners to Lessen the Spread of Coronavirus, The Washington Post, Mar. 17 2020, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/17/we-must-release-prisoners-lessen-spreadcoronavirus/.
17

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 23 of 31 PageID #: 92
death, and no adequate measures are currently in place to mitigate against these risks. If detained persons are contagious, seriously ill, or otherwise dead, participation in legal proceedings will be medically or physically impossible, in violation of procedural due process, see infra Section I(C). And, as explained below, there is no credible argument that community safety requires their continued detention—instead, it compels the opposite.
C. Plaintiffs Are Likely To Prevail On Their Claim That Continued Detention Violates Procedural Due Process
When a governmental action limits a fundamental due process right to be free from detention, see Foucha, 504 U.S. at 80, Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 561 (2003) (Souter, J., dissenting) (collecting cases), Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 981 (9th Cir. 2017), heightened scrutiny is applied. The action will be upheld only if the government shows it is necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997); Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 363 (1996), and is implemented in a manner that is “carefully limited” and “narrowly focused.” Foucha, 504 U.S. at 81. The fundamental substantive rights afforded to those in civil detention18 mandate “strong procedural protections.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 691 (2001); Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 551 (Souter, J., dissenting) (“the substantive demands of due process necessarily go hand in hand with the procedural”). At a minimum, procedural due process requires the right to be heard “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976).
Absent immediate injunctive relief, Defendants will provide either no procedural protections or wholly deficient ones. As explained, the government’s only legitimate interest in Plaintiffs’ continued detention—either to minimize flight risk pending removal proceedings or to
18 Multiple courts have ruled that civilly detained individuals are afforded greater pretrial protections than their criminally-charged counterparts. See note 8, supra.
18

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 24 of 31 PageID #: 93
prevent danger to the community, Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690—has been eviscerated by the
pandemic because the likelihood of Plaintiffs’ severe illness or death renders a meaningful removal
proceeding a nullity. See supra Factual Background Sec. II-V. At the same time, there are more
“narrowly focused” means to ensure Plaintiffs’ appearance in legal proceedings, which do not
subject them to the dangers of detention, including supervised or conditional release19 that would
suffice to meet the government’s interest without subjecting Plaintiffs to severe danger.
Nor can Plaintiffs avail themselves of any meaningful procedural protections in an already-
overburdened immigration court system, one that is ill-equipped to respond to the truly exigent
crisis presented by COVID-19. There is substantial evidence that detained persons in Louisiana
facilities—under normal circumstances—have severe restrictions on access to counsel and the
adjudicative process.20 These restrictions have worsened; many judges postpone or simply fail to
show up to their own hearings,21 rendering an already overburdened court system dysfunctional.22
This is a core procedural due process violation, Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333
(1976), as other courts faced with similar coronavirus spread in their respective jurisdictions have
19 See, e.g., Immigration: Progress and Challenges in the Management of Immigration Courts and Alternatives to Detention Program, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Sep. 18, 2018, https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO18-701T; Alternatives To Detention: Improved Data Collection and Analyses Needed to Better Assess Program Effectiveness, U.S. Government Accountability Office, (Nov. 13, 2014), https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-26. 20 Plaintiffs are held in remote facilities, often upwards of five hours away from counsel and courts, Lopez ¶ 8; Scott Decl. ¶ 6, and access to attorney-client visits are sparse, if any, Lopez Decl. ¶ 4, Scott Decl. ¶¶ 8-9, 20. The already-sparse visitation in detention centers where Plaintiffs are held is diminishing, Scott Decl. ¶ 14, Rivera Decl. ¶¶ 6-10, Giardina Decl. ¶ 4, Trostle Decl. ¶¶ 7-8 and counsel to detained noncitizens in those facilities report having to provide their own ICE-mandated medically-protective equipment, Giardina Decl. ¶ 6, or risk spreading the virus to other clients, staff, or their families. Lopez Decl. ¶ 6; Scott Decl. ¶ ¶ 13-14, 18; Axelrod Decl. ¶ 18. Meaningful attorney-client communications rarely occur due to a host of logistical nightmares—the current wait to videoconference with a client is upwards of one week—and witness interviews, document collection, and hearing preparation routinely fail for lack of accessibility. Lopez Decl. ¶ ¶ 4-5; Scott Decl. ¶ ¶ 7-8, 10; Axelrod Decl. ¶ ¶ 7, 9-10; Giardina Decl. ¶¶ 3; Villareal Decl. ¶ 16; Trostle Decl. ¶ 8. 21 Scott Decl. ¶ 17; Huber Decl. ¶ 10. 22 Counsel for immigrants in removal proceedings consistently report a supremely dysfunctional immigration court structure, a system exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, as practitioners describe a system struggling to manage caseloads, hold timely hearings, consider relevant evidence, or even have an Immigration Judge present. Lopez Decl. ¶ 6, 7; Scott Decl. ¶¶ 15-17, 20; Axelrod Decl. ¶¶ 8, 12; Rivera Decl. ¶¶ 14-16; Giardina Decl. ¶ 5; Fernandez Decl. ¶ 9; Trostle Decl. ¶¶ 7-9.
19

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 25 of 31 PageID #: 94
recognized. See Coronel v. Decker, CV 20-2472 (AJN) at *19-20 (S.D.N.Y Mar. 27, 2020); Jovel v. Decker, No. CV 20-308 (GBD) (SN), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52095, at *12-*16 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2020). And, without immediate injunctive relief, Plaintiffs would have to attempt to safeguard their own constitutional rights before a court charged to consider only flight risk and dangerousness, not exigent threats to life and safety. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690; In re Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. 37, 40 (BIA 2006) (setting forth nine non-health-related factors IJ is to consider in setting bond). To safeguard Plaintiffs’ procedural due process rights, this Court should order their outright release or a “narrowly focused” means to ensure future court appearances, such as supervised or conditional release. See Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 343 (1993) (Stevens, J. dissenting) (“a blanket rule that simply presumes that detention is more appropriate than release to responsible adults is not narrowly focused on serving that interest.”).
III. THE BALANCE OF THE EQUITIES AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST TILTS SHARPLY IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS’ RELEASE.
Where, as here, the Government is a party to the case, the third and fourth injunction factors—the balance of the equities and the public interest—merge. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009); El Paso Cty., Texas v. Trump, 407 F. Supp. 3d 655, 665 (W.D. Tex. 2019). As an initial matter, the public interest is served by the protection of constitutional rights. See Ingebretsen v. Jackson Pub. Sch. Dist., 88 F.3d 274, 280 (5th Cir. 1996); Cohen v. Coahoma Co., 805 F. Supp. 398, 408 (N.D. Miss. 1992).
In addition, an injunction would also protect public health and safety, paramount considerations that weigh heavily in favor of an injunction. See Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Gee, 862 F.3d 445, 472 (5th Cir. 2017); see also Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd. v. Pryor, 425 F.3d 158, 169 (2d Cir. 2005) (referring to “public health” as a “significant public interest”); Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307, 331 (4th Cir. 2013)
20

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 26 of 31 PageID #: 95
(“the public interest in this case lies with safeguarding public health”); Bianco v. Globus Med., Inc., No. 2:12-CV-00147-WCB, 2014 WL 1049067, at *11 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 17, 2014) (citing cases); U.S. v. Barkman, No. 3:19-cr-0052-RCJ-WGC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45628, at *4 (D. Nev. Mar. 17, 2020) (identifying risk of individuals carrying coronavirus into jails and noting that “[t]he men and women incarcerated at Washoe County Detention Facility are a part of our community and all reasonable measures must be taken to protect their health and safety.”).
The balance of equities also strongly tilts in Plaintiffs’ favor. As the Central District of California just held in ordering the release of detained children, “the public’s interest in preventing outbreaks of COVID-19 among families and children in ICE or ORR custody that will infect ICE and ORR staff, spread to others in geographic proximity, and likely overwhelm local healthcare systems tips the balance of equities sharply in Plaintiffs’ favor.” Flores v. Barr, No. CV 85-4544DMG (AGRx), ECF. 740 at 12 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2020). Because Plaintiffs present no risk to community safety, the comparative burden to the government in releasing Plaintiffs is nominal. Release not only saves the government time and money, it actually reduces detention center density, decreasing the chances of COVID-transmission to both detained persons and staff, and avoids correspondingly escalating medical costs. Even if it did not tangibly benefit the government, the risk of catastrophic medical consequences would still tilt the equities in Plaintiffs’ favor. See Hernandez, 872 F.3d at 996 (“Faced with such a conflict between financial concerns and preventable human suffering, we have little difficulty concluding that the balance of hardships tips decidedly in plaintiffs’ favor.”). IV. IMMEDIATE RELEASE IS THE ONLY EFFECTIVE REMEDY FOR
PLAINTIFFS’ UNLAWFUL DETENTION, WHICH THE COURT HAS AMPLE AUTHORITY TO ORDER.
21

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 27 of 31 PageID #: 96
The Court has ample authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and independently under Rule 6523 to issue the release of detained persons—a remedy that has been ordered by numerous courts across the country in recent days. Habeas invests in federal courts broad, equitable authority to “dispose of the matter as law and justice require,” 28 U.S.C. § 2243, as the “very nature of the writ demands that it be administered with the initiative and flexibility.” Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 292 (1969).
While it is clear in this Circuit that habeas authorizes challenges to the fact or duration of detention, there is more ambiguity about whether habeas – as compared to traditional civil rights remedies against state officials, such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – authorizes challenges to conditions of confinement. See Poree v. Collins, 866 F.3d 235, 244 (5th Cir. 2017) (observing that “the Supreme Court has not foreclosed” habeas challenges for conditions claims and “declin[ing] to address whether habeas is available only for fact or duration claims.”); Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971) (habeas challenging “living conditions and disciplinary measures” is “cognizable in federal habeas corpus”).
In any event, this habeas petition does not challenge conditions of confinement in the way this purported distinction imagines. Plaintiffs are not seeking judicial intervention in order to alleviate harsh conditions; it is precisely because there is no judicial possibility of remediating their unconstitutional confinement that they are challenging the very fact of their confinement. See Malam v. Adducci, et al., No. 2:20-cv-10829-JEL-APP, ECF No. 22 at p. 8 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 5, 2020) (habeas appropriate for COVID-19 release because petitioner “seeks immediate release from confinement as a result of there being no conditions of confinement sufficient to prevent
23 See Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 511 (2011) (“When necessary to ensure compliance with a constitutional mandate, courts may enter orders placing limits on a prison’s population.”).
22

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 28 of 31 PageID #: 97
irreparable constitutional injury under the facts of her case.”). As such, they seek “relief from unlawful imprisonment or custody.” Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933, 935-36 (5th Cir. 1976); see also Poree, 866 F.3d at 244 (petition seeking transfer to facility with less restrictive conditions “properly sounds in habeas”). Habeas confers “broad discretion in conditioning a judgment granting habeas relief . . . ‘as law and justice require’.” Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 775 (1987) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2243). That authority includes an order of release, Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 779 (2008), so as “to insure that miscarriages of justice . . . are surfaced and corrected.” Harris, 394 U.S. at 291.
Separately, under Rule 65 and a court’s inherent equitable authority to remedy unconstitutional government conduct, courts may issue “orders placing limits on a prison’s population.” Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 511 (2011). See also Duran v. Elrod, 713 F.2d 292, 297-98 (7th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1108 (1984) (affirming order releasing low-bond individuals in pretrial detention as necessary to reach a population cap); Mobile Cty. Jail Inmates v. Purvis, 581 F. Supp. 222, 224-26 (S.D. Ala. 1984) (exercising remedial powers to order a prison’s population reduced to alleviate unconstitutional conditions.)
In the midst of this unprecedented public health crisis, numerous courts considering the plight of detained individuals have similarly ordered release. See Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 1871460, Doc. No. 53 (9th Cir. Mar. 23, 2020) (sua sponte release from immigration detention due to rapidly escalating health crisis); In re Matter of Toledo Manrique, No. 19-MJ-71055-MAG-1 (TSH), 2020 WL 1307109, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2020) (“risk that this vulnerable person will contract COVID-19 while in jail is a special circumstance that warrants bail.”); United States v. Stephens, No. 15-cr-95 (AJN), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47846, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2020) (granting emergency motion for reconsideration of bail in light of COVID-19 pandemic); United
23

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 29 of 31 PageID #: 98
States v. Raihan, No. 20-cr-68-BMC- JO, ECF No. 20, Proc. at 10:12-19 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2020) E.C.F. No. 20 ( “[t]he more people we crowd into that facility, the more we’re increasing the risk to the community”); Manrique, 2020 WL 1307109 at *1 (74 year-old presents “risk that this vulnerable person will contract COVID-19 while in jail [which] is a special circumstance that warrants bail”).24
V. THE COURT SHOULD NOT REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS TO PROVIDE SECURITY PRIOR TO ISSUING A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) provides that “[t]he court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” The Fifth Circuit has determined that “the amount of security required pursuant to Rule 65(c) ‘is a matter for the discretion of the trial court,’” and that “the court ‘may elect to require no security at all.’” Kaepa, Inc. v. Achilles Corp., 76 F.3d 624, 628 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Corrigan Dispatch Company v. Casa Guzman, 569 F.2d 300, 303 (5th Cir. 1978)).
District courts routinely exercise this discretion to require no security in cases brought by indigent and/or incarcerated people. See, e.g., Cole v. Livingston, No. 4:14-CV-1698, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80345, at *23 (S.D. Tex. June 21, 2016) (state prisoners), vacated on other grounds, Yates v. Collier, 677 F. App’x 915 (5th Cir. 2017); Orantes-Hernandez v. Smith, 541 F. Supp. 351, 385 n. 42 (C.D. Cal. 1982) (detained immigrants). This Court should do the same here.
24 Courts maintain this authority to order those detained in violation of their due process rights released, notwithstanding § 1226(c). See Cabral v. Decker, 331 F. Supp. 3d 255, 259 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (collecting cases). see also Mapp v. Reno, 241 F.3d 221, 226 (2d Cir. 2001) (where a case presents “extraordinary circumstances . . . that make the grant of bail necessary to make the habeas remedy effective,” federal courts have the inherent authority to release individuals from immigration detention pending final disposition of their claims); Leslie v. Holder, 865 F. Supp. 2d 627, 639 (M.D. Pa. 2012) (“extraordinary circumstances” warranting immigrant’s release on habeas); Sanchez v. Winfrey, No. CIV.A.SA04CA0293RFNN, 2004 WL 1118718, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 28, 2004) (same).
24

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 30 of 31 PageID #: 99

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant the motion for a temporary restraining order and order their immediate release from custody. Dated: April 14, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ William P. Quigley William P. Quigley, La Bar No. 07769 Quigley77@gmail.com LOYOLA LAW CLINIC 7214 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70118 504.710.3074
Sirine Shebaya* sirine@nipnlg.org Matthew S. Vogel, La. Bar No. 35363** matt@nipnlg.org NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD 2201 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20007 718.419.5876
Andrew Free* Andrew@ImmigrantCivilRights.com LAW OFFICE OF R. ANDREW FREE P.O. Box 90568 Nashville, TN 37209 844.321.3221 x.1

Baher Azmy* bazmy@ccrjustice.org Ghita Schwarz* gschwarz@ccrjustice.org Angelo Guisado* aguisado@ccrjustice.org Lupe Aguirre* laguirre@ccrjustice.org Astha Sharma Pokharel* asharmapokharel@ccrjustice.org Aya Saed* asaed@ccrjustice.org Brittany Thomas* bthomas@ccrjustice.org CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 11201 212.614.6427
Jeremy Jong* jermjong@gmail.com 3527 Banks St, New Orleans, LA 70119 504.475.6728

*pro hac vice application forthcoming **admission application pending

Counsel for Petitioners-Plaintiffs

25

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-2 Filed 04/14/20 Page 31 of 31 PageID #: 100

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on April 14, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing document and accompanying motion, exhibits, and proposed order with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. I further certify that I spoke with AUSA Seth Reeg on the telephone and advised him of this filing on April 13, 2020, prior to its filing. In addition, I will email copies of these documents to AUSA Seth Reeg at the following email address at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Louisiana: seth.reeg@usdoj.gov

Dated: April 14, 2020

/s/ William P. Quigley William P. Quigley, La Bar No. 07769 Quigley77@gmail.com LOYOLA LAW CLINIC 7214 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70118 504.710.3074

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 1 of 64 PageID #: 138

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ​LOUISIANA

Talatu Helen Dada, et al, Petitioners-Plaintiffs​,
v. Dianne Witte, et al,

Civil Action No.:

Respondents-Defendants​.

DECLARATION OF Lydia Angela Louise Bazzano, MD, PhD, MPH, FACP I, Lydia Bazzano, make the following declaration based on my personal knowledge and declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the following is true and correct. I. Background
1. I am Dr. Lydia Angela Louise Bazzano. I am a senior physician and Executive Chair of the Ochsner Institutional Review Board at Ochsner Health System (OHS), and Professor of Epidemiology at the Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, where I direct the Center for Lifespan Epidemiology Research. A fellow of the American College of Physicians and Diplomate of the American Board of Internal Medicine, I did my residency training at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Internal Medicine Residency program in Boston, Massachusetts associated with the Harvard Medical School. I received my medical degree from Tulane University School of Medicine and a Master of Public Health Degree (MPH) as well as a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Epidemiology from the Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine.

1

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 2 of 64 PageID #: 139
2. As a professor of Epidemiology at Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, I teach classes in Clinical Epidemiology, which is a subfield of epidemiology focused on the issues relevant to clinical medicine. Epidemiology is commonly defined as ​the investigation and control of the distribution and determinants of disease in populations. Clinical epidemiology involves the application of population level principles of epidemiology to the individual care of patient in clinical medicine. In this capacity, I teach ​medical students in the dual degree MD/MPH and MD/PhD programs in Epidemiology, as well as students of public health in the MPH program.
3. As a Senior Physician in the Department of Internal Medicine at Ochsner Health System, I supervise residents in the Internal Medicine in the ambulatory primary care clinic. Prior to this position, from 2012 to 2014, I served as a physician in the Department of Hospital Medicine, attending patients admitted to medical units at the main campus of Ochsner Hospital, located at 1514 Jefferson Highway in New Orleans, Louisiana. In addition, I currently serve as the Executive Chair of the Ochsner Institutional Review Board, which protects the rights of human participants in clinical research.
4. I have broad expertise in the fields of Epidemiology and Internal Medicine with more than 170 peer-reviewed publications in across a range of health outcomes including but not limited to infectious, cardiovascular and metabolic diseases.
5. My CV is attached as Exhibit A. II. COVID-19 in Louisiana
6. The novel coronavirus, officially known as SARS-CoV-2 (Coronavirus), causes a disease known as COVID-19. COVID-19 has now reached pandemic status. At the time of this
2

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 3 of 64 PageID #: 140
declaration, 20,595 people have been diagnosed with COVID-19 in Louisiana, 104,045people have been tested for SARS-CoV-2, 2,084 of those people have been hospitalized with 458requiring mechanical ventilation, and 840deaths reported.1 The numbers of infection and death in the United States as a whole, and in Louisiana specifically, are likely underestimated due to the lack of test kits available.
7. The growth rate of COVID-19 cases in Louisiana has been rapid and is expected to outpace hospital bed capacity and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) capacity across the state in both urban and rural parishes.2,3 Even the most conservative epidemiologic models of virus transmission in which only 20% of the population become infected with SARS CoV-2, indicate that the need for hospital beds, ICU beds, and ventilators for mechanical ventilation will far exceed the currently available supply, and even an augmented supply.4
8. The population of Louisiana has a high prevalence of co-occurring underlying medical conditions that increase vulnerability to severe disease from the virus. The CDC identified underlying medical conditions that may increase the risk of serious COVID-19 for individuals of any age, including high blood pressure, metabolic disorders (such as diabetes), heart and lung disease, and neurologic conditions. States in the Mississippi Delta region, including Louisiana, and Mississippi, lead the nation in prevalence of chronic diseases such as hypertension with age standardized prevalence of 37.5% and 40.1% of the population of each
1 Louisiana Department of Public Health Coronavirus (COVID-19) interactive map, available at http://ldh.la.gov/Coronavirus/​, accessed Mar. 30, 2020 (at noon CDT). 2 Flattening the Curve: Taking a Look at Louisiana’s Hospital Capacity https://kadn.com/flattening-the-curve-taking-a-look-at-louisianas-hospital-capacity/ 3Louisiana governor warns New Orleans could run out of ventilators by early April https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/489532-louisiana-governor-warns-new-orleans-could-run-out-of-ventilators-byearly 4 How will hospitals accommodate a growing number of COVID-19 patients? Harvard Global Health Institute COVID-19 Hospital Capacity Estimates 2020 ​https://globalepidemics.org/
3

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 4 of 64 PageID #: 141
state, respectively, self-reporting hypertension compared to 28.9% nationally.5 Similarly for diabetes, Louisiana ranks 47​th in the nation with prevalence of 14.1% of the population having diabetes compared to a national prevalence of 10.9%; for cardiovascular (heart) disease 6% of the population compared to 4.2% nationally, and 5.1% of Louisiana’s population has suffered stroke (neurologic disease) compared to only 3.4% nationally.6 The percentage of Medicare enrollees with four or more chronic conditions (multiple chronic conditions) in Louisiana is 43.7% compared to 37.8% nationally. Because of this high prevalence of co-morbid conditions in the population of Louisiana (as well as other states in the Southern Mississippi Delta), vulnerability to severe disease from SARS CoV-2, requiring hospitalization and ICU level of care, as well as mechanical ventilation, is likely to be greater than in other regions or states, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases, further taxing the limited medical infrastructure.
9. For the aforementioned reasons, the hospitalization rate and requirements for ICU level care due to severe COVID-19 are likely to be higher in Louisiana than in other states where co-occurring underlying conditions are less frequently manifested in the general population. III. COVID-19 in Rural Louisiana
10. Rural medical infrastructure and capacity has been decreasing over time.7 Individuals in rural parishes of Louisiana and neighboring Southern states face more barriers to fast and efficient medical care than those in urban areas due to declining medical infrastructure. Most rural hospitals have very limited ICU capacity and few ventilators as compared to hospitals
5 Fang J, Gillespie C, Ayala C, Loustalot F. Prevalence of Self-Reported Hypertension and Antihypertensive Medication Use Among Adults Aged ≥18 Years — United States, 2011–2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2018;67:219–224 ​https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/wr/mm6707a4.htm?s_cid=mm6707a4_w 6 Data available at ​https://www.americashealthrankings.org/health-topics​, accessed March 30​th​, 2020 7 A Sense of Alarm as Rural Hospitals Keep Closing. New York Times. October 29, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/29/upshot/a-sense-of-alarm-as-rural-hospitals-keep-closing.html
4

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 5 of 64 PageID #: 142
and medical facilities in urban areas. Based on regional estimates of hospital capacity in Louisiana, towns in rural parishes such as Lake Charles in Calcasieu Parish and Alexandria in Rapides Parish demand for ICU and hospital beds will far outpace availability. For example, Alexandria has an estimated 20 ICU beds available regionally, however even using the best case scenario estimate of transmission (20% infected) approximately 2,002 individuals would need ICU level care due to infection which would require approximately 133 ICU beds needed in the next 6 months alone.8 More realistic models of transmission with a 40% or 60% rate of infection project a severely insufficient hospital and ICU bed capacity in rural areas which has a very strong potential to result in a large number of excess deaths.
11. Severe COVID-19 cases that exceed rural medical capacity will require transfer to urban hospitals where ICU and mechanical ventilation capacity is expected to be higher. However, demand for hospital and ICU beds in urban areas is expected to far exceed supply as well, resulting in delays in transfer of care until beds become available, if at all.
12. Geographic transfer of patients who are infected and exhibiting severe signs of COVID-19, if possible, from rural to urban medical centers may require several days and could be associated with poorer outcomes due to the transfer itself. In addition, transfer of patients with an infectious respiratory organism that can remain airborne for significant lengths of time poses risks for transmission to medical staff and others. IV. COVID-19 in ICE Detention Centers in Rural Louisiana
13. Community transmission is occurring across the state of Louisiana in all parishes. Staff at detention facilities are likely to become infected and transmit the infection to other staff
8 ​Data available at ​https://globalepidemics.org/2020/03/17/2020-03-17-caring-for-covid-19-patients/​ Harvard Global Health Institute, COVID-19 Hospital Capacity Estimates, accessed March 30​th​, 2020
5

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 6 of 64 PageID #: 143
and detainees. Due to the lack of systematic nationwide testing, it is likely that infections will occur and go undetected during several days of incubation, which are typically asymptomatic.
14. After SARS CoV-2 infection has occurred in a facility that is highly unlikely to be contained using the procedures outlined in the Interim Reference Sheet on 2019-Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19). Many aspects of congregative environments such as ICE detainment facilities make it difficult if not impossible to contain transmission. In Louisiana, 28 clusters of two or more linked cases have already occurred in congregative facilities, primarily nursing homes.
15. The protocol for detection and containment of COVID-19 in ICE facilities relies in part on questioning detainees about travel and sick contacts. These questions are likely to be unreliable and provide a false sense of security given the broad community-based transmission occurring in Louisiana. Staff themselves are likely exposed and bring the virus into the congregative environment during the asymptomatic period prior to fever and respiratory symptoms. Efforts to isolate detainees who have become infected are not likely to effectively contain infection because of the characteristics of the SARS CoV-2 virus and its long duration of airborne transmission due to small aerosolized particles. Only specialized negative pressure isolation rooms are documented to be effective against transmission due to small aerosolized particles. V. Specific Cases The 16 plaintiffs in this lawsuit present with personal health characteristics that put them at high to very high risk for complications from COVID-19 should they be exposed to the virus in detention.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 7 of 64 PageID #: 144
a. Ms. ​Rosabel Carrera (59, F) suffers from Diabetes, hypertension. unspecified heart issues, obesity. This person is at a very high risk for complications related to the novel coronavirus due to her co-occurring multiple chronic conditions (multi-morbidity) and obesity. ​Her age may increase the risk for complications. This person’s age also increases the risk for complications.
b. Ms. ​Tatalu Helen Dada (40, F). She suffers from Asthma; Hypothyroidism, Grave’s Disease, compromised immune system; Her asthma diagnosis puts her at a high risk for complications from COVID-19. The treatment for her Grave’s Disease (an auto-immune condition in which the body attacks itself) may make a person immunocompromised and predispose a person for certain cancers.
c. Ms. Sonia Lemus Tejada-Dejaso​ (53, F) ​suffers from Hypertension, unspecified heart issues. This person is at a very high risk for complications related to the novel coronavirus due to her co-occurring multiple chronic conditions (multi-morbidity).
d. Ms.​ Matilde Flores de Saavedra (78, F). She suffers from Diabetes, hypertension. This person is at a very high risk for complications related to the novel coronavirus due to her co-occurring multiple chronic conditions (multi-morbidity). This person is at an extremely high risk for complications due to her age.
e. Mr. ​Suresh Kumar (37 M) is malnourished, immunocompromised, and suffers from Hep C, liver infections. This person is at a very high risk for complications related to the novel coronavirus due to his immunocompromised status. Being
7

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 8 of 64 PageID #: 145
malnourished significantly lowers one’s immunity and would render one much more susceptible to acquiring an infection and having a harder time fighting it off. f. Mr. Pardeep Kumar (28, M). He is malnourished, immunocompromised, and has failing kidneys. This person is at a very high risk for complications related to the novel coronavirus due to his immunocompromised status. Being malnourished lowers one’s immunity and would render one much more susceptible to acquiring an infection and having a harder time fighting it off. Kidney failure in and of itself puts a person in the extremely high risk category for morbidity and mortality. Failing kidneys complicate every known medical condition and make it very difficult to treat and manage any/all medical conditions. g. Ms. Nadira Sampath Grant (53, F) suffers from Diabetes, diabetic neuropathy. This person is at a very high risk for complications related to the novel coronavirus due to her diabetes and the diabetes complications (neuropathy) which suggest her diabetes is not under good control. h. Ms. Griselda del Bosque (F, 59) suffers from asthma. She is at a high risk for complications related to her lung disease. This person is also at a high risk for complications due to her age. i. Mr. Sirous Asgari (59, M). He suffers from hypertension and an unspecified respiratory condition with a history of repeat episodes of pulmonary pneumonia. This person is at high risk for complications related to the novel coronavirus due to his high-blood pressure and lung condition.
8

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 9 of 64 PageID #: 146
j. Mr. Hasan Saleh (62, M). He suffers from diabetes and hypertension. This person is at a very high risk for complications related to the novel coronavirus due to his co-occurring multiple chronic conditions (multi-morbidity). This person is also at a high risk for complications due to his age.
k. Mr. Rolando Alex Colon (47, M). He suffers from hypertension. This person is at high risk for complications related to the novel coronavirus due to his high-blood pressure.
l. Mr. Eduardo Devora Espinosa (34, M). He suffers from diabetes and hypertension. This person is at a very high risk for complications related to the novel coronavirus due to his co-occurring multiple chronic conditions (multi-morbidity).
m. Mr.Desmond Nkobenei (25, M). He suffers from hypertension. This person is at high risk for complications related to the novel coronavirus due to his high-blood pressure.
n. Mr. Aracelio Rodriguez (61, M) suffers from asthma. Heis at a high risk for complications related to his lung disease. This person is also at a high risk for complications due to his age.
o. Mr. ​Abraham Gebremedhin Gebremichael,​ (33, M) ​suffers from bradycardia. This person is at a very high risk for complications related to the novel coronavirus due to his cardiovascular disease.
9

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 10 of 64 PageID #: 147
p. Mr. Karthikeyan Ponnusamy (42, M) suffers from diabetes, hypertension, and a blood condition called Low Lactate Dehydrogenase.9 This person is at a very high risk for complications related to the novel coronavirus due to his co-occurring multiple chronic conditions (multi-morbidity).
VI. Conclusion and Recommendations 16. For the reasons above, it is my professional judgment that the plaintiffs, currently
in ICE’s immigration detention centers in rural areas of Louisiana are at high risk of contracting SARS CoV-2 due to living in a congregative environment, and that they are much more likely to experience poor outcomes including multiorgan failure and death if they do become infected because of the shortage of rural hospital infrastructure and capacity.
17. Given transmission rates based on even the most conservative epidemiologic models, bed capacity in urban areas is likely to be far exceeded thus transfer to those hospitals will be improbable or impossible and poses risks to both the patient, health care workers, and others.
18. The recommendations of the ICE Health Service Corps embodied in Interim Reference Sheet on 2019-Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) will not be sufficient to prevent infection in ICE detainment facilities in Louisiana where community transmission is occurring in nearly all parishes. VII. Expert Disclosures None.
9 ​Mardani R, Ahmadi Vasmehjani A, Zali F, et al. Laboratory Parameters in Detection of COVID-19 Patients with Positive RT-PCR; a Diagnostic Accuracy Study. ​Arch Acad Emerg Med.​ 2020;8(1):e43. Published 2020 Apr 4.
10

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 11 of 64 PageID #: 148

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Signature:

Date:April 12, 2020

Location: Metairie, LA

Lydia Bazzano

11

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 12 of 64 PageID #: 149
Exhibit A

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 13 of 64 PageID #: 150

CURRICULUM VITAE
Lydia Angela Louise Bazzano, MD, PhD, MPH Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine Full Professor of Epidemiology Ochsner Clinic Foundation Senior Physician, Internal Medicine

Lydia Bazzano January 7, 2020

CONTACT INFORMATION

Business Address:

Tulane University Health Sciences Center School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine Department of Epidemiology 1440 Canal St., Suite 2034 New Orleans, LA 70112

Ochsner Clinic Foundation
Center for Primary Care and Wellness 1401-A Jefferson Hwy, 2nd Floor
New Orleans, LA 70121

Business Telephone and fax: (504) 988-7323 –T office; (504) 842-3535 - O office (504) 988-1568 - T fax; (504) 842-4248 - O fax (504) 450-2066 – cell

Business email Address:

lbazzano@tulane.edu lbazzano@ochsner.org

Home Address:

4401 Avron Blvd. Metairie, LA 70006

Citizenship:

USA

Gender:

Female

Marital Status:

Married

Number of Children: Number of Children:

1

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science Summa cum Laude (Ecology and Environmental Biology), May 1996 Newcomb College, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 14 of 64 PageID #: 151 1/7/2020
Doctor of Philosophy (Epidemiology), December 2000 Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana
Doctor of Medicine, May 2002 Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana
Master of Public Health (Epidemiology), May 2002 Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana

POST-DOCTORAL TRAINING

June, 2002- July, 2003

Internship in Internal Medicine Department of Medicine Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital Harvard School of Medicine Boston, Massachusetts

June, 2003-July, 2005

Residency in Internal Medicine Department of Medicine Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital Harvard School of Medicine Boston, Massachusetts

LICENSURE AND CERTIFICATIONS

1996-present

Basic Life Support Certification (BLS)

2002-present

Advanced Cardiac Life Support Certification (ACLS)

2003-present

United States Medical Licensure Examination Certification

2002-2009

Massachusetts Medical Licensure

2005-present

Louisiana Medical Licensure

2005-present

Diplomate, American Board of Internal Medicine Certification

2015-present

Certified Institutional Review Board Professional (CIP)

2017-present

Diplomate, American Board of Obesity Medicine Certification

Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 2 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 15 of 64 PageID #: 152 1/7/2020

ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS

July, 2019-

Professor of Epidemiology, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine

July, 2014-
January, 2013July, 2012 July, 2005-2012 July, 2005-2013 June, 2007

Lynda B & H Leighton Steward Professorship in Nutrition Research Director, Center for Lifespan Epidemiology Research Department of Epidemiology, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine
Senior Lecturer, University of Queensland School of Medicine Ochsner Clinical School
Associate Professor of Epidemiology (with Tenure), Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine
Assistant Professor of Epidemiology, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine
Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine, Tulane University School of Medicine
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University

CLINICAL PRIVLEDGES AND APPOINTMENTS

20192012 -2019 2005-2012 2005-2012 2006-2012

Senior Staff Physician, Internal Medicine, Ochsner Medical Center, Jefferson, LA Active Staff Physician, Internal Medicine, Ochsner Medical Center, Jefferson, LA Active Staff Physician, Internal Medicine, Tulane Lakeside Hospital, Metairie, LA Active Staff Physician, Internal Medicine, Tulane HCA Hospital, New Orleans, LA Active Staff Physician, Internal Medicine, Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, New Orleans, LA

HONORS AND AWARDS

1996

Phi Beta Kappa National Honor Society Newcomb College, Tulane University

1996

Fred R. Cagel Memorial Award in Biology Newcomb College, Tulane University

2000

Population Research Award in Epidemiology Tulane University School of Public health and Tropical Medicine

Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 3 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 16 of 64 PageID #: 153 1/7/2020

2002 2002 2002 2002

Jeremiah and Rose Stamler Research Award, Finalist American Heart Association, Council on Epidemiology and Prevention
Janet M. Glasgow Memorial Achievement Citation American Medical Women’s Association Tulane University School of Medicine
Medical Student Award American Federation for Medical Research Tulane University School of Medicine
Alpha Omega Alpha Medical Honor Society Tulane University School of Medicine

PUBLIC POLICY ACTIVITY
2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans Advisory Committee I have been appointed to the 2020 Committee, https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/dietary-guidelines
2005-2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans My work has been cited in the Scientific Report from the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee in each year (2005, 2010, 2015) of guidelines over the past 15 years
 Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee: Advisory Report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Agriculture. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Washington, DC, Appendix E2: Supplementary Documentation to the 2015 DGAC Report - Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. 2015. Appendix E-2.26, 27, 28: Evidence Portfolio
 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. 2010. Report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010, to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Washington, DC.
 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. 2005. Report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory
Committee on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2005, to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Washington, DC. Part D. Science Base Section 6: Selected Food Groups (Fruits and Vegetables, Whole Grains, and Milk Products)
United States Preventive Services Task Force My work has been referenced in the following.
 Selph S, Dana T, Blazina I, Bougatsos C, Patel H, Chou R. Screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2015 Jun 2;162(11):765-76.

Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 4 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 17 of 64 PageID #: 154
1/7/2020
American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology, Guidelines and Statements My work has been referenced in all of the following guidelines and statements
 Eckel RH, Jakicic JM, Ard JD, De Jesus JM, Miller NH, Hubbard VS, Lee IM, Lichtenstein AH, Loria CM, Millen BE, Nonas CA. 2013 AHA/ACC guideline on lifestyle management to reduce cardiovascular risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2014 Jul 1;63(25 Part B):2960-84.
 Smith SC, Benjamin EJ, Bonow RO, Braun LT, Creager MA, Franklin BA, Gibbons RJ, Grundy SM, Hiratzka LF, Jones DW, Lloyd-Jones DM. AHA/ACCF secondary prevention and risk reduction therapy for patients with coronary and other atherosclerotic vascular disease: 2011 update: a guideline from the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology Foundation endorsed by the World Heart Federation and the Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2011 Nov 29;58(23):2432-46.
 Goldstein LB, Adams R, Alberts MJ, Appel LJ, Brass LM, Bushnell CD, Culebras A, DeGraba TJ, Gorelick PB, Guyton JR, Hart RG. Primary prevention of ischemic stroke: A guideline from the American heart association/American stroke association stroke council: Cosponsored by the atherosclerotic peripheral vascular disease interdisciplinary working group; cardiovascular nursing council; clinical cardiology council; nutrition, physical activity, and metabolism council; and the quality of care and outcomes research interdisciplinary working group: The American academy of neurology affirms the value of this guideline. Stroke. 2006 Jun 1;37(6):1583-633.
 Hunt SA, Abraham WT, Chin MH, Feldman AM, Francis GS, Ganiats TG, Jessup M, Konstam MA, Mancini DM, Michl K, Oates JA. ACC/AHA 2005 guideline update for the diagnosis and management of chronic heart failure in the adult—summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Heart Failure). Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2005 Sep 20;46(6):1116-43.
 Mosca L, Appel LJ, Benjamin EJ, Berra K, Chandra-Strobos N, Fabunmi RP, Grady D, Haan CK, Hayes SN, Judelson DR, Keenan NL. Evidence-based guidelines for cardiovascular disease prevention in women. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2004 Mar 3;43(5):900-21.
World Health Organization I was invited to give a presentation at a joint conference of the World Health Organization and the food and Agriculture Organization on “Effects of Fruits and Vegetables on Risk of CVD and Diabetes”.
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 5 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 18 of 64 PageID #: 155 1/7/2020
 World Health Organization. Fruit and vegetables for health: report of a Joint FAO/WHO Workshop, 1-3 September, 2004, Kobe, Japan. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/ay5861e.pdf Accessed 10/28/2018

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS AND OFFICES

1997-

Member of the American Medical Association

2003-2009 Member of the Massachusetts Medical Society

2005-

Member of the Louisiana State Medical Society

2005-

Member of the Society of General Internal Medicine

2005-

Member of the Nutrition and Epidemiology Councils, American Heart Association

2007

Fellow, American College of Nutrition

2008-2011 Elected Member, Evidence Based Medicine Task Force, Society of General Internal Medicine

2012

Member, Southern Society for Clinical Investigation

2013

Fellow, American College of Physicians

2016-

Member, American Association of University Professors

2017-2018 Board Member, American Association of University Professors, Tulane Chapter

2017-present Elected Councilor, Executive Council, Southern Society for Clinical Investigation

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEES
Study Section and Scientific Reviews
NIHR-CCF (National Institute for Health Research Central Commissioning Facility for UK Department of Health) Peer review for Department of Health Applied Research Program– “Delivering the Diabetes Prevention Program in a UK Community Setting,” 2006
Member, National Board of Public Health Examiners 2008 Item-Writing Committee, Meetings September 28-29th, 2006 and September 10-11th,2007
Office of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health, Reviewer for 2007 Annual Bibliography of Significant Advances in Dietary Supplements Research, 2007

Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 6 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 19 of 64 PageID #: 156 1/7/2020
Ad-hoc Member, Health Services Organization and Delivery (HSOD) Study Section, National Institute of Health, Center for Scientific Review, February 5-6th, 2009
Member, External Advisory Panel, Peer review for Dry Grain Pulses Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP), Office of Agriculture, EGAT, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), October 16th, 2009
Member, Special Emphasis Panel, National Institutes of Health, Center for Scientific Review, Internet Assisted Review, February 16-18th, 2011
Member, Special Emphasis Panel reviewing applications for the RFA HL-12-004 entitled “Maximizing the scientific value of the NHLBI biologic specimen repository: Scientific opportunities (R21)”, National Institutes of Health, Center for Scientific Review, November 7, 2012
Ad-hoc Member, Neurological, Aging and Musculoskeletal Epidemiology Study Section, National Institute of Health, Center for Scientific Review, June 13th-14th, 2013
Ad-hoc Member, Neurological, Aging and Musculoskeletal Epidemiology Study Section, National Institute of Health, Center for Scientific Review, October 15th-16th, 2015
Member, Contract Review Panel, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Center for Scientific Review, ZHD1 DSR-K (DD), August 23rd, 2016.
Ad hoc Member, Cancer, Heart, and Sleep Epidemiology Study Section - A (CHSA), National Institute of Health, Center for Scientific Review, October 27th-29th, 2016
Ad hoc Member, Neurological, Aging and Musculoskeletal Epidemiology Study Section, National Institute of Health, Center for Scientific Review, February 5th-6th, 2018
Regular Appointed Member, Neurological, Aging and Musculoskeletal Epidemiology Study Section, National Institute of Health, Center for Scientific Review, July 1, 2018 - 2022
SERVICE
Journal Reviewer
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition British Journal of Nutrition Nutrition, Metabolism & Cardiovascular Disease American Journal of Epidemiology Annals of Neurology Annals of Internal Medicine Canadian Medical Association Journal Circulation Diabetes Care
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 7 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 20 of 64 PageID #: 157 1/7/2020
Epidemiology Hypertension JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) JAMA Internal Medicine Journal of the American College of Nutrition Kidney International Lancet Nature Public Library of Science (PLoS) One Public Library of Science (PLoS) Medicine Stroke Science
Journal Editorial Boards
2011-present Nutrition Metabolism and Cardiovascular Disease
Academic Committees 2005-present Member, Tulane MD/MPH Advisory Committee 2008-2010 Chair, Tulane MD/MPH Advisory Committee 2006-2008 Member, Tulane SPH&TM Culminating Exam Committee 2008, 2017 Chair, Tulane Epidemiology Faculty Search Committee (Cardiovascular
Epidemiology) 2009-2012 Member, Program Committee, Tulane Interdisciplinary PhD in Aging Studies 2009-2014 Alternate Member, Tulane University Biomedical Institutional Review Board 2017-2018 Secretary, General Faculty, Tulane School of Public Health & Tropical Medicine
2018-2021 Senator, Tulane University Senate (3 year term)
2012-present Steering Committee Member, Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women’s Health (BIRCWH)
2014-present Ochsner Institutional Review Board, Chair Panel A
2014-present Chair, Bogalusa Heart Study Steering Committee, Tulane University
2019-present Advancement, Promotion and Tenure Committee, Tulane School of Public Health & Tropical Medicine
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 8 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 21 of 64 PageID #: 158 1/7/2020
Other Committees 2011-2012 Alternate Member, New Orleans VA Institutional Review Board

CONSULTANCIES

2017-2020

Mizkan Ltd – consultancy to provide scientific and clinical input in the design and operation of a clincal trial examining the effects of a vinegar beverage on blood pressure in black and white men and women with pre-hypertension as defined in the most recent national guidelines.

2015-2016

Wellness and Nutrition Advisory Board (WNAB) – consultancy organized by Sabra Dipping Company to advise the company regarding scientific advances in nutrition which provide a strategic opportunity to promote healthy dietary patterns incorporating hummus and other Sabra products.

2007-2009

Bean Expert Advisory Panel (BEAN) – consultancy organized by Bush Beans. The Panel is composed of 11 nationally renowned food and nutrition, health, and culinary experts who advise on ways to help Americans achieve the 2005 Dietary Guidelines recommendation to consume 3 cups per week of legumes, such as beans, as part of a healthy diet

TEACHING
Current Course Director Course Director Lecturer Lecturer Lecturer

EPID 6420 Clinical Epidemiology (Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, 2007-present)
EPID 6430 Clinical and Translational Research Methods (Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, 2018-present)
EPID 790 Advanced Epidemiology Methods (Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, 2008-2011)
EPID 6220 Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology (Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, 2000-2002, 2005-present)
EPID 6500 Nutritional Epidemiology (Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, 2017-present)

Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 9 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 22 of 64 PageID #: 159 1/7/2020

Lecturer

SPHU 3200 Nutrition and Chronic Disease (Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, 2015-present)

Past

Course Director

EPID 6220 Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology (Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, 2009-2012)

Lecturer

EPID 6430 Clinical and Translational Research Methods (Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, 2015-2017)

Students Advised Each Year by Level of Degree

Master Students (by year of graduation or expected)

2007

Kristina Lewis (MD/MPH) Jeffrey Wolters (MD/MPH) Hannan Natalia (MD/MPH) Ulana Pogribna (MD/MPH)

2008

Melissa DeVito (MD/MPH) Kyle Fargen (MD/MPH) Mary McDonald (MD/MPH) Jeannie Rhee (MD/MPH) Ajay Tejwanti (MD/MPH) Michael Tees (MD/MPH)

2009

Eduardo Castro-Echeverry (MD/MPH) Joseph Prows (MD/MPH) James Lukens (MPH) Margaret Jones (MD/MPH) Katherine Kerisit (MD/MPH) Jason Collins (MPH) Bridgette Collins-Burrow (MPH) Nedret Copur (MPH) Houman Dahi (MPH) Christiane Hadi (MPH) Julie Kumata (MPH) T C Narumanchi (MPH) Supat Thammasitboon (MPH) Aggarwal, Shivang (MPH)

2010

Jordan Awerbach (MD/MPH) Kelly Lafaro (MD/MPH) Oni Olirunde (MS) Eric Richter (MS-CR)

Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 10 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 23 of 64 PageID #: 160 1/7/2020

2011 2012 2013 2014
2015 2016

Sindjuja Marupudi (MPH) Alina D. Fotino (MPH)
Aaron Boojindasum (MD/MPH) Jordan Hoffman (MD/MPH) Edward Mannina (MD/MPH) Ashley Nitschke (MD/MPH) Snow Petersen (MD/MPH) Tina Wang (MD) Brian Zwecker (MD/MPH) Jerome Crowley (MD/MPH) Supat Thommasitboon (MPH)
David Bateman (MD/MPH) Daniel Bourgeois III (MD/MPH) Joanne So (MD/MPH) Thomas Jan (MD/MPH) Kutaiba Al-Shebeeb (MPH) Palwasha Anwari (MPH) Cassandra J. Heiselman (MPH)
Kayleen Bailey (MD/MPH) David German (MD/MPH) Michael R. Halstead (MD/MPH) Marsha Smith (MD/MPH)
Mohamed H. Eloustaz (MD/MPH) Cary T. Grayson (MD/MPH) Nicole Jackson (MD/MPH) Erica Jones (MD/MPH) Jessica Langston (MD/MPH) Simon Christopher Lim (MD/MPH) Tianming Liu (MD/MPH) Daniel Reid (MD/MPH) Rebecca Reimers (MD/MPH) Lucy Witt (MD/MPH) Elliot S. Brannon (MPH/PeaceCorp) Kenny L. Wang (MPH) Babalola Olayiwola (MPH)
Maeh Al-Shawaf (MPH) Nkechi Mbaebie (MPH) Oduche Igboechi (MD/MPH) Anita Madison (MD/MPH) William (Cameron) McGuire (MD/MPH) Brigid Avendido (MD/MPH) Ngoc Ly (MD/MPH)
Brian Burkett (MD/MPH)

Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 11 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 24 of 64 PageID #: 161 1/7/2020

2017 2018
2019 2020

Chad Bush (MD/MPH) Erin Dawson (MD/MPH) Brian Duffell (MD/MPH) Michelle Fleshner (MD/MPH) Emily Harkins (MD/MPH) Haley Johnson (MD/MPH) Jason Ohlstein (MD/MPH) Stacey Ullman (MD/MPH) Aktar Faisal (MPH) Sarah Ali (MPH)
Alexandra Haugh (MD/MPH) Kelly Jensen (MD/MPH) Meghan McGwier (MD/MPH) Shoshana Newman-Gerhardt (MD/MPH) Hunter Smith (MD/MPH)
Brigid Adviento (MD/MPH) Christopher Carr (MD/MPH) Thomas Flowers (MD/MPH) Zachary Koretz (MD/MPH) Gregory Minutillo (MD/MPH) William Preston (MD/MPH) Christopher Schmitt (MD/MPH) David Swift (MD/MPH) Natalie Fortune (MS)
Kionna Henderson (MPH) Peng Cheng (MPH)
Kyle Arnold (MD/MPH) Hannah Bernstein (MD/MPH)

Doctoral Dissertation Committees (Member and Chaired)
Dissertation Committees (Chair)
Angela M. Thompson, MPH PhD in Epidemiology 2012 “Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Medication Adherence and Health Care Facility Utilization among Hypertensive Veterans” Current Position: Epidemiologist at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
Tian Hu, BM, MPH PhD in Epidemiology 2015 “Nutritional Factors in the Progression of Chronic Kidney Disease”

Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 12 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 25 of 64 PageID #: 162 1/7/2020
Current Position: Post-doctoral fellow at University of Minnesota, School of Public Health, Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Ben Pollock, MPH PhD in Epidemiology 2017 “Cardiovascular Risk Mobility: A Novel Application of Economic Theory to Characterize Life Course Cardiovascular Risk” Current Position: Epidemiologist, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida
Patrick Stuchlik, MS PhD in Epidemiology 2018 “Childhood and Young Adult Predictors of Cognitive Function in Middle Age: Evidence from the Bogalusa Heart Study” Current Position: Post-doctoral Fellow, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
Dissertation Committee (Member)
Tanika Kelly, MPH 2008 PhD in Epidemiology: Chair, Jiang He, MD, PhD “Genetic Variants and the Salt-Sensitivity of Blood Pressure in the Genetic Epidemiology Network of Salt-Sensitivity” Current Position: Associate Professor of Epidemiology, Tulane University SPHTM
Angela Shen, MPH 2011 Executive ScD in Health Systems Management: Chair, Mahmud Khan, PhD “An Economic Evaluation for the Introduction of a Future HIV Vaccine” Current Position: Affiliate Faculty, Drexel University, Dornsife School of Public Health, Consultant - Vaccines and Immunizations, Captain (retired) US Public Health Service
Christopher Anderson, MPH, Expected 2020 PhD in Epidemiology: Chair, Jeanette Gustat, PhD “The Built Environment, Health Contexts and Health States in the Bogalusa Heart Study Population”
Xiang Li, MPH Expected 2020 PhD in Epidemiology: Chair, Lu Qi, MD, PhD
Jovia Nierenberg, MPH Expected 2020 PhD in Epidemiology: Chair, Tanika Kelly, PhD
PUBLICATIONS
Peer-reviewed Publications
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 13 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 26 of 64 PageID #: 163 1/7/2020
1. He J, Ogden LG, Vupputuri S, Bazzano LA, Loria C, Whelton PK. Dietary sodium intake and subsequent risk of cardiovascular diseases in overweight U.S. men and women. JAMA. 1999; 282:2027-2034.
2. He J, Bazzano LA. Effects of lifestyle modification on treatment and prevention of hypertension. Current Opinion in Nephrology and Hypertension. 2000; 9:267-271.
3. He J, Ogden LG, Bazzano LA, Vupputuri S, Loria C, Whelton PK. Risk factors for congestive heart failure in US men and women: NHANES I Epidemiologic Follow-up Study. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:996-1002
4. Butt AA, Dascomb KK, DeSalvo KB, Bazzano L, Kissinger PJ, Szerlip HM. Human Immunodeficiency Virus infection in elderly patients. Southern Medical Journal. 2001; 94:397-400.
5. Bazzano LA, He J, Ogden LG, Vupputuri S, Loria C, Myers L, Whelton PK. Dietary potassium intake and risk of stroke in US men and women: NHANES I Epidemiologic Follow-up Study. Stroke. 2001; 32:1473-1480.
6. Bazzano LA, He J, Ogden LG, Vupputuri S, Loria C, Myers L, Whelton PK. Legume consumption and risk of coronary heart disease in US men and women: NHANES I Epidemiologic Follow-up Study. Arch Intern Med. 2001; 161(21):2573-8.
7. Bazzano LA, He J, Ogden LG, Vupputuri S, Loria C, Myers L, Whelton PK. Dietary Intake of folate and risk of stroke in US men and women: NHANES I Epidemiologic Follow-up Study. Stroke. 2002; 33:1183-1189.
8. Bazzano LA, He J, Ogden LG, Vupputuri S, Loria C, Myers L, Whelton PK. Fruit and vegetable intake and cardiovascular disease mortality in US adults: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey I Epidemiologic Follow-up Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002;76:93-9
9. Bazzano LA, He J, Ogden LG, Vupputuri S, Loria C, Myers L, Whelton PK. Agreement on nutrient intake between NHANES I and ESHA Food Processor databases. Am J Epidemiol. 2002; 156:78-85.
10. He J, Ogden LG, Bazzano LA, Vupputuri S, Loria C, Whelton PK. Dietary sodium intake and incidence of congestive heart failure in overweight US men and women: First National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Epidemiologic Follow-up Study. Arch Intern Med. 2002; 162:1619-1624.
11. Bazzano LA, He J, Muntner P, Vupputuri S, Whelton PK. Relationship between cigarette smoking and novel risk factors for cardiovascular disease in the United States. Ann Intern Med. 2003; 138:891–897.
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 14 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 27 of 64 PageID #: 164
1/7/2020
12. Bazzano LA, Serdula MK, Liu S. Dietary intake of fruits and vegetables and risk of cardiovascular disease. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2003; 5: 492-499.
13. Vupputuri S, He J, Muntner P, Bazzano LA, Whelton PK, Batuman V. B Blood lead level is associated with elevated blood pressure in blacks. Hypertension. 2003;41:463-8.
14. Bazzano LA, He J, Ogden LG, Vupputuri S, Loria C, Myers L, Whelton PK. Dietary fiber intake and reduced risk of coronary heart disease in US men and women. Arch Intern Med. 2003; 163:1897-1904.
15. Vupputuri S, Batuman V, Muntner P, Bazzano LA, Lefante JJ, Whelton PK, He J. Effect of blood pressure on early decline in kidney function among hypertensive men. Hypertension. 2003; 42:1144-1149.
16. Vupputuri S, Batuman V, Muntner P, Bazzano LA, Lefante JJ, Whelton PK, He J. The risk for mild kidney function decline associated with illicit drug use among hypertensive men. Am J Kidney Dis. 2004; 43:629-35.
17. Bazzano LA, Serdula MK, Liu S. Prevention of type 2 diabetes by diet and lifestyle modification. J Am Coll Nutr. 2005; 24: 310-319.
18. Bazzano LA, Song Y, Bubes V, Good CK, Manson JE, Liu S. Dietary intake of whole and refined grain breakfast cereals and weight gain in men. Obes Res. 2005; 13:1952-1960.
19. Bazzano LA, Reynolds K, Holder K, He J. Effect of folate supplementation on risk of cardiovascular diseases: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2006; 296:2720-2726.
20. Bazzano LA, Khan Z, Reynolds K, He J. Effect of nocturnal nasal continuous positive airway pressure on blood pressure in obstructive sleep apnea. Hypertension. 2007; 50: 1-7
21. He J, Reynolds K, Chen J, Chen CS, Duan X, Reynolds R, Bazzano LA, Whelton PK, Gu D. Cigarette smoking and erectile dysfunction among Chinese men without clinical vascular disease. Am J Epidemiol. 2007; 166:803-809.
22. Bazzano LA, Gu D, Reynolds K, Wu X, Chen CS, Duan X, Wildman RP, Klag MJ, He J. Alcohol consumption and risk of stroke among Chinese men. Annals of Neurology. 2007; 62: 569-578.
23. Reilly KH, Gu D, Duan X, Wu X, Chen CS, Huang J, Kelly TN, Chen J, Bazzano LA, He J. Risk factors for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease mortality in Chinese adults. Am J Epidemiol. 2008; 167:998-1004.
24. Wildman RP, Gu D, Muntner P, Wu X, Reynolds K, Duan X, Chen CS, Huang G, Bazzano LA, He J. Trends in overweight and obesity in Chinese adults: 1991 to 1999-2000. Obesity. 2008; 16:1448-1453.
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 15 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 28 of 64 PageID #: 165
1/7/2020
25. Bazzano LA, Li TY, Joshipura KJ, Hu FB. Fruit, vegetable and fruit juice intake and development of diabetes in women. Diabetes Care. 2008; 31:1311-1317.
26. Zhang Y, Reilly KH, Tong W, Xu T, Chen J, Bazzano LA, Qiao D, Ju Z, Chen CS, He J.Blood pressure and clinical outcome among patients with acute stroke in Inner Mongolia, China. J Hypertens. 2008; 26: 1446-52.
27. Hu D, Fu P, Xie J, Chen CS, Yu D, Whelton PK, He J, Gu D; for the InterASIA Collaborative Group. Increasing prevalence and low awareness, treatment and control of diabetes mellitus among Chinese adults: the InterASIA study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2008; 81:250-7.
28. Riccioni G, Bazzano LA. Antioxidant plasma concentration and supplementation in carotid intima-media thickness. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2008; 6:723-9.
29. Riccioni G, Bazzano LA, Bucciarelli T, Mancini B, di Ilio E, D'Orazio N. Rosuvastatin reduces intima-media thickness in hypercholesterolemic subjects with asymptomatic carotid artery disease: the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerotic Disease in Manfredonia (ACADIM) Study. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2008; 9: 2403-8.
30. Chen J, Gu D, Jaquish CE, Chen CS, Rao DC, Liu D, Hixson JE, Hamm LL, Gu CC, Whelton PK, He J; GenSalt Collaborative Research Group. Association between blood pressure responses to the cold pressor test and dietary sodium intervention in a Chinese population. Arch Intern Med. 2008; 168: 1740-6.
31. Riccioni G, Capra V, D’Orazio N, Bucciarelli T, Bazzano LA. Leukotriene modifiers in the treatment of cardiovascular diseases. J Leukoc Biol. 2008; 84:1374-8.
32. Riccioni G, Bucciarelli T, D’Orazio N, Palumbo N, di Illio E, Corradi F, Penneli A, Bazzano LA. Plasma antioxidants and asymptomatic carotid atherosclerotic disease. Ann Nutr Metab. 2008; 53:86-90.
33. Bazzano LA, Lee LJ, Shi L, Reynolds K, Jackson JA, Fonseca V. Safety and efficacy of glargine compared with NPH insulin for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Diabet Med. 2008; 25: 924-32.
34. Bazzano LA. Effects of soluble dietary fiber on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and coronary heart disease risk. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2008;10:473-7.
35. He J, Gu D, Chen J, Jaquish CE, Rao DC, Hixson JE, Chen JC, Duan X, Huang JF, Chen CS, Kelly TN, Bazzano LA, Whelton PK; GenSalt Collaborative Research Group. Gender difference in blood pressure responses to dietary sodium intervention in the GenSalt study. J Hypertens. 2009; 27: 48-54.
36. Chen J, Gu D, Huang J, Rao DC, Jaquish CE, Hixson JE, Chen CS, Chen J, Lu F, Hu D, Rice T, Kelly TN, Hamm LL, Whelton PK, He J; GenSalt Collaborative Research Group.
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 16 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 29 of 64 PageID #: 166
1/7/2020
Metabolic syndrome and salt sensitivity of blood pressure in non-diabetic people in China: a dietary intervention study. Lancet. 2009; 373: 829-35.
37. Riccioni G, D'Orazio N, Palumbo N, Bucciarelli V, Ilio E, Bazzano LA, Bucciarelli T. Relationship between plasma antioxidant concentrations and carotid intima-media thickness: the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerotic Disease In Manfredonia Study. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2009;16(3):351-7.
38. Kelly TN, Rice TK, Gu D, Hixson JE, Chen J, Liu D, Jaquish CE, Bazzano LA, Hu D, Ma J, Gu CC, Huang J, Hamm LL, He J. Novel genetic variants in the alpha-adducin and guanine nucleotide binding protein beta-polypeptide 3 genes and salt sensitivity of blood pressure. Am J Hypertens. 2009; 22: 985-92.
39. Bazzano LA, Gu D, Reynolds K, Chen J, Wu X, Chen CS, Duan X, Chen J, He J. Alcohol consumption and risk of coronary heart disease among Chinese men. Int J Cardiol. 2009; 135: 78-85.
40. Bazzano LA. Folic acid supplementation and cardiovascular disease: the state of the art. Am J Med Sci. 2009; 338: 48-9.
41. Kelly TN, Bazzano LA, Fonseca VA, Thethi TK, Reynolds K, He J. Systematic review: glucose control and cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151: 394-403.
42. Zhao Q, Gu D, Chen J, Bazzano LA, Rao DC, Hixson JE, Jaquish CE, Cao J, Chen J, Li J, Rice T, He J. Correlation between blood pressure responses to dietary sodium and potassium intervention in a Chinese population. Am J Hypertens. 2009; 22:1281-6.
43. He J, Gu D, Chen J, Wu X, Kelly TN, Huang JF, Chen JC, Chen CS, Bazzano LA, Reynolds K, Whelton PK, Klag MJ. Premature deaths attributable to blood pressure in China: a prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2009; 374:1765-72.
44. Bazzano LA, Thompson AM, Tees MT, Nguyen CH, Winham D. Non-soy legume consumption lowers cholesterol levels: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Disease. 2011;21:94-103.
45. Bazzano LA, Gu D, Whelton MR, Wu X, Chen CS, Duan X, Chen J, Chen JC, He J. Body mass index and risk of stroke among men and women in China. Ann Neurol. 2010;67:11-20.
46. Thompson AM, Zhang Y, Tong W, Xu T, Chen J, Zhao L, Kelly TN, Chen C-S, Bazzano LA, He J. Association of obesity and biomarkers of inflammation and endothelial dysfunction in adults in Inner Mongolia, China. Int J Cardiol.. 2011;150:247-252.
47. Soliman EZ, Prineas RJ, Go AS, Xie D, Lash JP, Rahman M, Ojo A, Teal VL, Jensvold NG, Robinson NL, Dries DL, Bazzano L, Mohler ER, Wright JT, Feldman HI; Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) Study Group. Chronic kidney disease and prevalent atrial fibrillation: the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC). Am Heart J. 2010;159:1102-7.
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 17 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 30 of 64 PageID #: 167
1/7/2020
48. Miller ER 3rd, Juraschek S, Pastor-Barriuso R, Bazzano LA, Appel LJ, Guallar E.. Metaanalysis of folic acid supplementation trials on risk of cardiovascular disease and risk interaction with baseline homocysteine levels. Am J Cardiol. 2010;106:517-27.
49. Rebholz CM, Gu D, Yang W, Chen J, Wu X, Huang JF, Chen JC, Chen CS, Kelly TN, Duan X, Bazzano LA, He J Mortality from suicide and other external cause injuries in China: a prospective cohort study. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:56.
50. Thompson AM, Hu T, Eshelbrenner CL, Reynolds K, He J, Bazzano LA. Antihypertensive treatment and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease events among persons without hypertension: A meta-analysis. JAMA. 2011;305:913-922.
51. Bazzano LA, Belame S, Patel DA, Chen W, Srinivasan S, McIlwain E, Berenson GS. Obesity and left ventricular dilatation in young adulthood: The Bogalusa Heart Study. Clin Cardiol. 2011;34:153-9.
52. Rubinstein AL, Irazola VE, Bazzano LA, Sobrino E, Calandrelli M, Lanas F, Lee AG, Manfredi JA, Olivera H, Ponzo J, Seron P, He J. Detection and follow-up of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and risk factors in the Southern Cone of Latin America. The Pulmonary Risk in South America (PRISA) Study. BMC Pulm Med. 2011;11:34.
53. Rubinstein AL, Irazola VE, Poggio R, Bazzano L, Calandrelli M, Lanas Zanetti FT, Manfredi JA, Olivera H, Seron P, Ponzo J, He J. Detection and follow-up of cardiovascular disease and risk factors in the Southern Cone of Latin America: the CESCAS I study. BMJ Open. 2011 Jan 1;1:e000126.
54. Khan N, Abbas AM, Whang N, Balart LA, Bazzano LA, Kelly TN. Incidence of liver toxicity in inflammatory bowel disease patients treated with methotrexate: A meta-analysis of clinical trials. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2011 Jul 12. doi:10.1002/ibd.21820. [Epub ahead of print]
55. Thompson AM, Zhang Y, Tong W, Xu T, Chen J, Zhao L, Kelly TN, Chen C-S, Bazzano LA, He J. Association of inflammation and endothelial dysfunction with metabolic syndrome, prediabetes and diabetes in adults from Inner Mongolia, China. BMC Endocrine Disorders 2011;11:16.
56. Scialla JJ, Appel LJ, Wolf M, Yang W, Zhang X, Sozio SM, Miller ER 3rd, Bazzano LA, Cuevas M, Glenn MJ, Lustigova E, Kallem RR, Porter AC, Townsend RR, Weir MR, Anderson CA; Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) Study Group. Plant protein intake is associated with fibroblast growth factor 23 and serum bicarbonate in patients with CKD: The Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort Study. J Ren Nutr. 2012;22:379-388.e1.
57. Fischer MJ, Xie D, Jordan N, Kop WJ, Krousel-Wood M, Kurella Tamura M, Kusek JW, Ford V, Rosen LK, Strauss L, Teal VL, Yaffe K, Powe NR, Lash JP; CRIC Study Group Investigators. Factors associated with depressive symptoms and use of antidepressant
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 18 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 31 of 64 PageID #: 168
1/7/2020
medications among participants in the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) and Hispanic-CRIC Studies. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;60:27-38.
58. Mendoza JM, Isakova T, Ricardo AC, Xie H, Navaneethan SD, Anderson AH, Bazzano LA, Xie D, Kretzler M, Nessel L, Hamm LL, Negrea L, Leonard MB, Raj D, Wolf M; for the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort. Fibroblast growth factor 23 and inflammation in CKD. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012:7:1155-62.
59. Anderson AH, Yang W, Hsu CY, Joffe MM, Leonard MB, Xie D, Chen J, Greene T, Jaar BG, Kao P, Kusek JW, Landis JR, Lash JP, Townsend RR, Weir MR, Feldman HI; CRIC Study Investigators. Estimating GFR among participants in the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) Study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;60:250-61.
60. Akkina SK, Ricardo AC, Patel A, Das A, Bazzano LA, Brecklin C, Fischer MJ, Lash JP. Illicit drug use, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease in the US adult population. Transl Res. 2012;160:391-8.
61. Khan N, Abbas AM, Bazzano LA, Koleva YN, Krousel-Wood M. Long-term oral mesalazine adherence and the risk of disease flare in ulcerative colitis: nationwide 10-year retrospective cohort from the veterans affairs healthcare system. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2012;36:755-64.
62. Grunwald JE, Alexander J, Ying GS, Maguire M, Daniel E, Whittock-Martin R, Parker C, McWilliams K, Lo JC, Go A, Townsend R, Gadegbeku CA, Lash JP, Fink JC, Rahman M, Feldman H, Kusek JW, Xie D, Jaar BG; CRIC Study Group. Retinopathy and chronic kidney disease in the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2012;130:1136-44.
63. Hu T, Mills KT, Demanelis K, Eloustaz M, He J, Kelly TN, Yancy W, Bazzano LA. Effect of low carbohydrate diet versus low fat diet on metabolic risk factors: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Epidemiol 2012;176 Suppl 7:S44-54.
64. Zhao Q, Bazzano LA, Cao J, Li J, Chen J, Huang J, Chen J, Kelly TN, Chen CS, Hu D, Ma J, Rice TK, He J, Gu D. Reproducibility of blood pressure response to the cold pressor test: the GenSalt Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2012 Oct 1;176 Suppl 7:S91-8.
65. Zhao J, Song F, Ren S, Wang Y, Wang L, Liu W, Wan Y, Xu H, Zhou T, Hu T, Bazzano L, Sun Y. Predictors of condom use behaviors based on the health belief model (HBM) among female sex workers: A cross-sectional study in Hubei province, China. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e49542.
66. Rebholz CM, Gu D, Chen J, Huang JF, Cao J, Chen JC, Li J, Lu F, Mu J, Ma J, Hu D, Ji X, Bazzano LA, Liu D, He J; GenSalt Collaborative Research Group. Physical activity reduces salt sensitivity of blood pressure: the Genetic Epidemiology Network of Salt Sensitivity Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;176 Suppl 7:S106-13
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 19 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 32 of 64 PageID #: 169
1/7/2020
67. Yaffe K, Ackerson L, Hoang TD, Go AS, Maguire MG, Ying GS, Daniel E, Bazzano LA, Coleman M, Cohen DL, Kusek JW, Ojo A, Seliger S, Xie D, Grunwald JE; CRIC Study Investigators. Retinopathy and cognitive impairment in adults with CKD. Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;61:219-27
68. Fotino AD, Thompson-Paul AM, Bazzano LA. Effect of coenzyme Q₁₀ supplementation on heart failure: a meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;97:268-75.
69. Khan N, Abbas AM, Koleva YN, Bazzano LA. Long-term mesalamine maintenance in ulcerative colitis: Which is more important? Adherence or daily dose. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2013;19:1123-9.
70. Cauble S, Abbas A, Balart L, Bazzano L, Medvedev S, Shores N. United States women receive more curative treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma than men. Dig Dis Sci. 2013;58:2817-25.
71. Khan N, Abbas AM, Lichtenstein GR, Loftus EV Jr, Bazzano LA. Risk of lymphoma in patients with ulcerative colitis treated with thiopurines: a nationwide retrospective cohort study. Gastroenterology. 2013;145:1007-1015.
72. Gu D, Zhao Q, Chen J, Chen JC, Huang J, Bazzano LA, Lu F, Mu J, Li J, Cao J, Mills K, Chen CS, Rice T, Hamm LL, He J. Reproducibility of blood pressure responses to dietary sodium and potassium interventions: the GenSalt study. Hypertension. 2013;62:499-505.
73. Bazzano LA, Green T, Harrison TN, Reynolds K. Dietary approaches to prevent hypertension. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2013;15:694-702.
74. He J, Zhang Y, Xu T, Zhao Q, Wang D, Chen CS, Tong W, Liu C, Xu T, Ju Z, Peng Y, Peng H, Li Q, Geng D, Zhang J, Li D, Zhang F, Guo L, Sun Y, Wang X, Cui Y, Li Y, Ma D, Yang G, Gao Y, Yuan X, Bazzano LA, Chen J; for the CATIS Investigators. Effects of immediate blood pressure reduction on death and major disability in patients with acute ischemic stroke: The CATIS randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2013 Nov 17. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.282543. [Epub ahead of print]
75. Hu T, Bazzano LA. The low-carbohydrate diet and cardiovascular risk factors: evidence from epidemiologic studies. Nutrition Metabolism and Cardiovascular Disease. 2014; 24:337-43
76. Hu T, Rianon N, Nettleton JA, Hyder J, Jacobs D, Steffen LM, Criqui M, He J, Bazzano LA. Vegetable protein intake is related to lumbar bone density among White women: the MultiEthnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). British Journal of Nutrition. 2014 28;112(8):138492.
77. Bazzano LA, Hu T, Reynolds K, Yao L, Bunol C, Liu Y, Chen CS, Klag MJ, Whelton PK, He J. Effect of low carbohydrate and low fat diets: A randomized controlled trial. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2014; 2;161:309-18.
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 20 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 33 of 64 PageID #: 170
1/7/2020
78. Mills KT, Rubinstein A, Irazola V, Chen J, Beratarrechea A, Poggio R, Dolan J,Augustovski F, Shi L, Krousel-Wood M, Bazzano LA, He J. Comprehensive approach for hypertension control in low-income populations: rationale and study design for the hypertension control program in Argentina. Am J Med Sci.2014;348:139-45.
79. Pak KJ, Hu T, Fee C, Wang R, Smith M, Bazzano LA. Acute hypertension: a systematic review and appraisal of guidelines. Ochsner J. 2014;14:655-63.
80. Hu T, Yao L, Gustat J, Chen W, Webber L, Bazzano L. Which measures of adiposity predict subsequent left ventricular geometry? Evidence from the Bogalusa Heart Study. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2014 Nov 17 [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25534865.
81. Rubinstein AL, Irazola VE, Calandrelli M, Elorriaga N, Gutierrez L, Lanas F,Manfredi JA, Mores N, Olivera H, Poggio R, Ponzo J, Seron P, Chen CS, Bazzano LA, He J. Multiple cardiometabolic risk factors in the Southern Cone of Latin America: A population-based study in Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay. Int JCardiol. 2015;27:82-88.
82. Li C, Bazzano LA, Rao DC, Hixson JE, He J, Gu D, Gu CC, Shimmin LC, Jaquish CE, Schwander K, Liu DP, Huang J, Lu F, Cao J, Chong S, Lu X, Kelly TN. Genome-wide linkage and positional association analyses identify associations of novel AFF3 and NTM genes with triglycerides: the GenSalt study. J Genet Genomics. 2015;42:107-17.
83. Stuchlik P, Zhang X, Gavin S, Gaudreau S, Breault JL, Bazzano LA. Willingness to Participate in Cardiovascular Clinical Research among African-Americans. J Clin Res Bioeth. 2015;6(3). pii: 223. PMCID: PMC4516454.
84. Hu T, Yao L, Reynolds K, Whelton PK, Niu T, Li S, He J, Bazzano LA. The Effects of a Low-Carbohydrate Diet vs. a Low-Fat Diet on Novel Cardiovascular Risk Factors: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Nutrients. 2015 17;7(9):7978-94.doi: 10.3390/nu7095377. PubMed PMID: 26393645; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4586572.
85. Hu T, Yao L, Reynolds K, Niu T, Li S, Whelton P, He J, Bazzano L. The effects of a lowcarbohydrate diet on appetite: A randomized controlled trial. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2015 Dec 12. pii: S0939-4753(15)30099-5. doi:10.1016/j.numecd.2015.11.011. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26803589.
86. Zhang H, Zhang T, Li S, Li Y, Hussain A, Fernandez C, Harville E, Bazzano LA, He J, Chen W. Long-term Impact of Childhood Adiposity on Adult Metabolic Syndrome Is Modified by Insulin Resistance: The Bogalusa Heart Study. Sci Rep. 2015 Dec 7;5:17885. doi: 10.1038/srep17885. PubMed PMID: 26640243; PubMed Central PMCID:PMC4671136.
87. Bazzano AN, Green E, Madison A, Barton A, Gillispie V, Bazzano LA. Assessment of the quality and content of national and international guidelines on hypertensive disorders of pregnancy using the AGREE II instrument. BMJ Open. 2016 Jan 18;6(1):e009189. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009189. PubMed PMID: 26781503;PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4735207.
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 21 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 34 of 64 PageID #: 171
1/7/2020
88. Bazzano LA, Hu T, Bertisch SM, Yao L, Harville EW, Gustat J, Chen W, Webber LS, Shu T, Redline S. Childhood obesity patterns and relation to middle-age sleep apnoea risk: the Bogalusa Heart Study. Pediatr Obes. 2016 Jan 19. doi:10.1111/ijpo.12103. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26780975.
89. Zhang T, Zhang H, Li S, Li Y, Liu Y, Fernandez C, Harville E, Bazzano L, He J, Chen W. Impact of Adiposity on Incident Hypertension Is Modified by Insulin Resistance in Adults: Longitudinal Observation From the Bogalusa Heart Study. Hypertension. 2016 Jan;67(1):5662. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4679582.
90. Rebholz CM, Anderson CA, Grams ME, Bazzano LA, Crews DC, Chang AR, Coresh J, Appel LJ. Relationship of the American Heart Association's Impact Goals (Life's Simple 7) With Risk of Chronic Kidney Disease: Results From the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Cohort Study. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016 Apr 6;5(4):e003192. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.116.003192. PubMed PMID: 27053058 PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4859292.
91. Chen W, Li S, Fernandez C, Sun D, Lai CC, Zhang T, Bazzano L, Urbina EM, Deng HW. Temporal Relationship Between Elevated Blood Pressure and Arterial Stiffening Among Middle-Aged Black and White Adults: The Bogalusa Heart Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2016;183(7):599-608. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4801137.
92. Jacobs MB, Harville EW, Kelly TN, Bazzano LA, Chen W. Maternal apolipoprotein E genotype as a potential risk factor for poor birth outcomes: The Bogalusa Heart Study. J Perinatol. 2016;36(6):432-8. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4882229.
93. Zhang T, Li Y, Zhang H, Sun D, Li S, Fernandez C, Harville E, Bazzano L, He J, Chen W. Insulin-sensitive adiposity is associated with a relatively lower risk of diabetes than insulinresistant adiposity: the Bogalusa Heart Study. Endocrine. 2016 Apr 8. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 27060004.
94. Engelgau MM, Sampson UK, Rabadan-Diehl C, Smith R, Miranda J, Bloomfield GS, Belis D, Narayan KM; National Health, Lung, and Blood Institute–UnitedHealth Global Health Centers of Excellence Collaborators. Tackling NCD in LMIC: Achievements and Lessons Learned From the NHLBI-UnitedHealth Global Health Centers of Excellence Program. Glob Heart. 2016;11(1):5-15. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4843818.
95. Poggio R, Serón P, Calandrelli M, Ponzo J, Mores N, Matta MG, Gutierrez L, Chung-Shiuan C, Lanas F, He J, Irazola V, Rubinstein A, Bazzano L. Prevalence, Patterns, and Correlates of Physical Activity Among the Adult Population in Latin America: Cross-Sectional Results from the CESCAS I Study. Glob Heart. 2016;11(1):81-88.e1. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4843826.
96. Bu X, Li C, Zhang Y, Xu T, Wang D, Sun Y, Peng H, Xu T, Chen CS, Bazzano LA, Chen J, He J; CATIS Investigators. Early Blood Pressure Reduction in Acute Ischemic Stroke with Various Severities: A Subgroup Analysis of the CATIS Trial Cerebrovasc Dis. 2016;42(34):186-95. doi: 10.1159/000444722. Epub 2016 Apr 26. PubMed PMID: 27110711.
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 22 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 35 of 64 PageID #: 172
1/7/2020
97. Hu T, Yao L, Reynolds K, Niu T, Li S, Whelton PK, He J, Steffen LM, Bazzano LA. Adherence to low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets in relation to weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors. Obes Sci Pract. 2016 Mar 1;2(1):24-31. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4840987.
98. Hu T, Guralnik JM, Yao L, Gustat J, Harville EW, Webber LS, Chen W, He J, Whelton PK, Bazzano LA. Postural hand tremor and incident hypertension in young to middle-aged adults: the Bogalusa heart study. J Hypertens. 2016 Jul;34(7):1273-8. PubMed PMID: 27136316.
99. Fischer MJ, Hsu JY, Lora CM, Ricardo AC, Anderson AH, Bazzano L, Cuevas MM, Hsu CY, Kusek JW, Renteria A, Ojo AO, Raj DS, Rosas SE, Pan Q, Yaffe K, Go AS, Lash JP; Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) Study Investigators. CKD Progression and Mortality among Hispanics and Non-Hispanics. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016 May 5. pii: ASN.2015050570. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 27151925.
100. Jacobs MB, Bazzano LA, Pridjian G, Harville EW. Childhood adiposity and fertility difficulties: the Bogalusa Heart Study. Pediatr Obes. 2016. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 27350648.
101. Bu X, Zhang Y, Bazzano LA, Xu T, Guo L, Wang X, Zhang J, Cui Y, Li D, Zhang F, Ju Z, Xu T, Chen CS, Chen J, He J. Effects of early blood pressure reduction on cognitive function in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Int J Stroke. 2016 Jul 13. pii: 1747493016660094. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 27412188.
102. Zhang T, Zhang H, Li Y, Sun D, Li S, Fernandez C, Qi L, Harville E, Bazzano L, He J, Xue F, Chen W. Temporal Relationship Between Childhood Body Mass Index and Insulin and Its Impact on Adult Hypertension: The Bogalusa Heart Study. Hypertension. 2016;68(3):818-23.; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4982798.
103. Hua Y, Wang F, Zhang T, Zhang H, Chen W, Shen W, Fernandez C, Harville E, Bazzano L, He J, Li S. Relation of Birth Weight to Heart Rate in Childhood, Adolescence, and Adulthood (from the Bogalusa Heart Study). Am J Cardiol. 2016 Jun 28. pii: S00029149(16)31117-1. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 27453510.
104. Pollock BD, Hu T, Chen W, Harville EW, Li S, Webber LS, Fonseca V, Bazzano LA. Utility of existing diabetes risk prediction tools for young black and white adults: Evidence from the Bogalusa Heart Study. J Diabetes Complications. 2016 Jul 27. pii: S10568727(16)30327-0. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 27503406.
105. Kelly TN, Bazzano LA, Ajami NJ, He H, Zhao J, Petrosino JF, Correa A, He J. Gut Microbiome Associates With Lifetime Cardiovascular Disease Risk Profile Among Bogalusa Heart Study Participants. Circ Res. 2016 Aug 9. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 27507222.
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 23 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 36 of 64 PageID #: 173
1/7/2020
106. Cen R, Hussain A, Pak KJ, Mitchell G, Nikles J, Gaudreau S, Bazzano LA, Breault JL. Do N-of-1 Trials Need IRB Review? J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2016;11(3):250-5. PubMed PMID: 27534588.
107. Rubinstein AL, Irazola VE, Calandrelli M, Chen CS, Gutierrez L, Lanas F, Manfredi JA, Mores N, Poggio R, Ponzo J, Seron P, Bazzano LA, He J. Prevalence, Awareness, Treatment, and Control of Hypertension in the Southern Cone of Latin America. Am J Hypertens. 2016 Dec 1;29(12):1343-1352. PubMed PMID: 27543330.
108. Lanas F, Bazzano L, Rubinstein A, Calandrelli M, Chen CS, Elorriaga N, Gutierrez L, Manfredi JA, Seron P, Mores N, Poggio R, Ponzo J, Olivera H, He J, Irazola VE. Prevalence, Distributions and Determinants of Obesity and Central Obesity in the Southern Cone of America. PLoS One. 2016 Oct 14;11(10):e0163727. PubMed PMID: 27741247; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5065193.
109. Rebholz CM, Grams ME, Steffen LM, Crews DC, Anderson CA, Bazzano LA, Coresh J, Appel LJ. Diet Soda Consumption and Risk of Incident End Stage Renal Disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017 Jan 6;12(1):79-86. Epub 2016 Oct 26. PubMed PMID: 27797893; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5220651.
110. Harville EW, Jacobs MB, Qi L, Chen W, Bazzano LA. Multigenerational Cardiometabolic Risk as a Predictor of Birth Outcomes: The Bogalusa Heart Study. J Pediatr. 2017 Feb;181:154-162.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.10.031. Epub 2016 Nov 7. PubMed PMID: 27832834; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5274554.
111. Fernandez C, Hsu R, Sander G, Hussain A, Barshop R, Li S, Shu T, Zhang T, Galazka P, Chen W, Bazzano L, Giles TD. Methodological evaluation of the noninvasive estimation of central systolic blood pressure in nontreated patients: the Bogalusa Heart Study. Blood Press Monit. 2017 Apr;22(2):95-100. PubMed PMID: 27902495.
112. Harville EW, Chen W, Bazzano L, Oikonen M, Hutri-Kähönen N, Raitakari O. Indicators of fetal growth and adult liver enzymes: the Bogalusa Heart Study and the Cardiovascular Risk in Young Finns Study. J Dev Orig Health Dis. 2017 Apr;8(2):226-235. Epub 2016 Dec 6. PubMed PMID: 27919310.
113. Pollock BD, Chen W, Harville EW, Bazzano LA. Associations between Hunter Type A/B Personality and Cardiovascular Risk Factors from Adolescence through Young Adulthood. Int J Behav Med. 2017 Jan 26. doi: 10.1007/s12529-017-9636-5. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 28127708.
114. Xi B, Zhang T, Li S, Harville E, Bazzano L, He J, Chen W. Can Pediatric Hypertension Criteria Be Simplified? A Prediction Analysis of Subclinical Cardiovascular Outcomes From the Bogalusa Heart Study. Hypertension. 2017 Apr;69(4):691-696. PubMed PMID: 28223474; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5344730
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 24 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 37 of 64 PageID #: 174
1/7/2020
115. Zhang T, Zhang H, Li Y, Li S, Fernandez C, Bazzano L, He J, Xue F, Chen W. Long-term Impact of Temporal Sequence from Childhood Obesity to Hyperinsulinemia on Adult Metabolic Syndrome and Diabetes: The Bogalusa Heart Study. Sci Rep. 2017 Feb 23;7:43422. PubMed PMID: 28230104; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5322533.
116. Bazzano AN, Potts KS, Bazzano LA, Mason JB. The Life Course Implications of Ready to Use Therapeutic Food for Children in Low-Income Countries. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017 Apr 11;14(4). pii: E403. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14040403. PubMed PMID: 28398257; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5409604.
117. Zhang H, Zhang T, Li S, Guo Y, Shen W, Fernandez C, Harville E, Bazzano LA, Urbina EM, He J, Chen W. Long-Term Excessive Body Weight and Adult Left Ventricular Hypertrophy Are Linked Through Later-Life Body Size and Blood Pressure: The Bogalusa Heart Study. Circ Res. 2017 May 12;120(10):1614-1621. PubMed PMID: 28232594; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5435124.
118. Pollock BD, Chen W, Harville EW, Shu T, Fonseca V, Mauvais-Jarvis F, Kelly TN, Bazzano LA. Differential sex effects of systolic blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol on type 2 diabetes: Life course data from the Bogalusa Heart Study. J Diabetes. 2017 Feb 27. doi: 10.1111/1753-0407.12543. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 28239958.
119. Knutson KL, Lash J, Ricardo AC, Herdegen J, Thornton JD, Rahman M, Turek N, Cohan J, Appel LJ, Bazzano LA, Tamura MK, Steigerwalt SP, Weir MR, Van Cauter E. Habitual sleep and kidney function in chronic kidney disease: the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort study. J Sleep Res. 2018 Apr;27(2):281-9. Epub 2017/06/24. doi: 10.1111/jsr.12573. PubMed PMID: 28643350.
120. Koskinen J, Magnussen CG, Sinaiko A, Woo J, Urbina E, Jacobs DR, Steinberger J, Prineas R, Sabin MA, Burns T, Berenson G, Bazzano L, Venn A, Viikari JSA, Hutri-Kähönen N, Raitakari O, Dwyer T, Juonala M. Childhood Age and Associations Between Childhood Metabolic Syndrome and Adult Risk for Metabolic Syndrome, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Carotid Intima Media Thickness: The International Childhood Cardiovascular Cohort Consortium. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017 Aug 16;6(8). pii: e005632. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.117.005632. PubMed PMID: 28862940; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5586423.
121. Wallace M, Bazzano L, Chen W, Harville E. Maternal childhood cardiometabolic risk factors and pregnancy complications. Ann Epidemiol. 2017 Jul;27(7):429-434. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2017.06.002. Epub 2017 Jun 29. PubMed PMID: 28789774; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5657459.
122. Irazola V, Rubinstein A, Bazzano L, Calandrelli M, Chung-Shiuan C, Elorriaga N, Gutierrez L, Lanas F, Manfredi JA, Mores N, Olivera H, Poggio R, Ponzo J, Seron P, He J. Prevalence, awareness, treatment and control of diabetes and impaired fasting glucose in the Southern Cone of Latin America. PLoS One. 2017 Sep 6;12(9):e0183953. doi:
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 25 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 38 of 64 PageID #: 175
1/7/2020
10.1371/journal.pone.0183953. eCollection 2017. PubMed PMID: 28877254; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5587261.
123. Ricardo AC, Knutson K, Chen J, Appel LJ, Bazzano L, Carmona-Powell E, Cohan J, Tamura MK, Steigerwalt S, Thornton JD, Weir M, Turek NF, Rahman M, Van Cauter E, Lash JP; Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) Study Investigators. The Association of Sleep Duration and Quality with CKD Progression. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017 Dec;28(12):3708-3715. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2016121288. Epub 2017 Sep 14. PubMed PMID: 28912373; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5698066
124. He J, Irazola V, Mills KT, Poggio R, Beratarrechea A, Dolan J, Chen CS, Gibbons L, Krousel-Wood M, Bazzano LA, Nejamis A, Gulayin P, Santero M, Augustovski F, Chen J, Rubinstein A; HCPIA Investigators. Effect of a Community Health Worker-Led Multicomponent Intervention on Blood Pressure Control in Low-Income Patients in Argentina: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2017 Sep 19;318(11):1016-1025. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.11358. PubMed PMID: 28975305; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5761321.
125. Bazzano AN, Kaji A, Felker-Kantor E, Bazzano LA, Potts KS. Qualitative Studies of Infant and Young Child Feeding in Lower-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Synthesis of Dietary Patterns. Nutrients. 2017 Oct 18;9(10). pii: E1140. doi: 10.3390/nu9101140. Review. PubMed PMID: 29057842; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5691756.
126. Koskinen J, Juonala M, Dwyer T, Venn A, Thomson R, Bazzano L, Berenson GS, Sabin MA, Burns TL, Viikari JSA, Woo JG, Urbina EM, Prineas R, Hutri-Kähönen N, Sinaiko A, Jacobs D, Steinberger J, Daniels S, Raitakari OT, Magnussen CG. Impact of Lipid Measurements in Youth in Addition to Conventional Clinic-Based Risk Factors on Predicting Preclinical Atherosclerosis in Adulthood: International Childhood Cardiovascular Cohort Consortium. Circulation. 2018 Mar 20;137(12):1246-1255. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.029726. Epub 2017 Nov 23. PubMed PMID: 29170152; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5860965.
127. Du Y, Zhang T, Sun D, Li C, Bazzano L, Qi L, Krousel-Wood M, He J, Whelton PK, Chen W, Li S. Effect of Serum Adiponectin Levels on the Association Between Childhood Body Mass Index and Adulthood Carotid Intima-Media Thickness. Am J Cardiol. 2018 Mar 1;121(5):579-583. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.11.029. Epub 2017 Dec 12. PubMed PMID: 29329827; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5805622.
128. Wallace ME, Bazzano L, Zhang C, Harville E. Fasting glucose concentrations and associations with reproductive history over 40 years of follow-up. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2018 Jan 24:1-4. doi: 10.1080/09513590.2018.1431771. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 29366358.
129. Pollock BD, Harville EW, Mills KT, Tang W, Chen W, Bazzano LA. Cardiovascular Risk and the American Dream: Life Course Observations From the BHS (Bogalusa Heart Study).
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 26 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 39 of 64 PageID #: 176
1/7/2020
J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Feb 6;7(3). pii: e007693. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.117.007693. PubMed PMID: 29432134; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5850254.
130. Li Y, Zhang T, Han T, Li S, Bazzano L, He J, Chen W. Impact of cigarette smoking on the relationship between body mass index and insulin: Longitudinal observation from the Bogalusa Heart Study. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018 Feb 15. doi: 10.1111/dom.13259. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 29446554.
131. Harville EW, Chen W, Guralnik J, Bazzano LA. Reproductive history and physical functioning in midlife: The Bogalusa Heart Study. Maturitas. 2018 Mar;109:26-31. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2017.12.006. Epub 2017 Dec 8. PubMed PMID: 29452778; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5819611.
132. Dvorin EL, Lamb MC, Monlezun DJ, Boese AC, Bazzano LA, Price-Haywood EG. High Frequency of Systemic Corticosteroid Use for Acute Respiratory Tract Illnesses in Ambulatory Settings. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Jun 1;178(6):852-854. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.0103. PubMed PMID: 29482204; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5885155.
133. Bertisch SM, Pollock BD, Mittleman MA, Buysse DJ, Bazzano LA, Gottlieb DJ, Redline S. Insomnia with Objective Short Sleep Duration and Risk of Incident Cardiovascular Disease and All-Cause Mortality: Sleep Heart Health Study. Sleep. 2018 Jun 1;41(6). Epub 2018 Mar 7. doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsy047. PubMed PMID: 29522193
134. Inge TH, Coley RY, Bazzano LA, Xanthakos SA, McTigue K, Arterburn D, Williams N, Wellman R, Coleman KJ, Courcoulas A, Desai NK, Anau J, Pardee R, Toh S,Janning C, Cook A, Sturtevant J, Horgan C, Zebrick AJ, Michalsky M; PCORnet Bariatric Study Collaborative. Comparative effectiveness of bariatric procedures among adolescents: the PCORnet bariatric study. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2018 Apr 17. pii: S1550-7289(18)30175-8. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2018.04.002. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 29793877
135. Sinaiko AR, Jacobs DR Jr, Woo JG, Bazzano L, Burns T, Hu T, Juonala M, Prineas R, Raitakari O, Steinberger J, Urbina E, Venn A, Jaquish C, Dwyer T. The International Childhood Cardiovascular Cohort (i3C) consortium outcomes study of childhood cardiovascular risk factors and adult cardiovascular morbidity and mortality: Design and recruitment. Contemp Clin Trials. 2018 Jun;69:55-64. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2018.04.009. Epub 2018 Apr 22. PubMed PMID: 29684544; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5964041.
136. Sun D, Li X, Heianza Y, Nisa H, Shang X, Rabito F, Kelly T, Harville E, Li S, He J, Bazzano L, Chen W, Qi L. History of Asthma From Childhood and Arterial Stiffness in Asymptomatic Young Adults: The Bogalusa Heart Study. Hypertension. 2018 May;7.1(5):928-936. doi: 10.1161 /HYPERTENSIONAHA .118.10916. PubMed PMID: 29632104; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5898648.
137. Zhang T, Li S, Bazzano L, He J, Whelton P, Chen W. Trajectories of Childhood Blood Pressure and Adult Left Ventricular Hypertrophy: The Bogalusa Heart Study. Hypertension. 2018 May 21. pii: HYPERTENSIONAHA.118.10975. doi: 10.1161
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 27 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 40 of 64 PageID #: 177
1/7/2020
/HYPERTENSIONAHA.118.10975. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 29785961.
138. Bundy JD, Bazzano LA, Xie D, Cohan J, Dolata J, Fink JC, Hsu CY, Jamerson K, Lash J, Makos G, Steigerwalt S, Wang X, Mills KT, Chen J, He J; CRIC Study Investigators. SelfReported Tobacco, Alcohol, and Illicit Drug Use and Progression of Chronic Kidney Disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2018 Jun 7. pii:CJN.11121017. doi: 10.2215/CJN.11121017. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID:29880471.
139. Yan Y, Zhang T, Li S, Liu Y, Bazzano L, He J, et al. Black-White Difference in the Impact of Long-term Blood Pressure from Childhood on Adult Renal Function: the Bogalusa Heart Study. American journal of hypertension. 2018 July 13. doi: 10.1093/ajh/hpy109. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID 30010953
140. Wang Y, Xiong X, Bazzano L, Harville EW. Childhood cardiovascular health and subfertility: the Bogalusa Heart Study. Pediatric research. 2018 Jun 13. Epub 2018/06/15. eng. PubMed PMID: 29899387
141. Williams LG, Peacock E, Joyce C, Bazzano LA, Sarpong D, Whelton PK, Holt EW, Re R, Frohlich E, He J, Muntner P. Risk Factors for Low Pharmacy Refill Adherence among Older Hypertensive Men and Women by Race. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences. 2018 Jul 29.
142. Harville EW, Myers L, Shu T, Wallace ME, Bazzano LA. Pre-pregnancy cardiovascular risk factors and racial disparities in birth outcomes: the Bogalusa Heart Study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2018 Aug 20;18:339. doi:10.1186/s12884-018-1959-y. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 30126351.
143. Munley B, Buser AT, Gaudreau S, Breault JL, Bazzano LA. An Analysis of Informed Consent Form Readability of Oncology Research Protocols. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2018 Oct;13(4):363-367. doi: 10.1177/1556264618795057. Epub 2018 Aug 20. PubMed PMID: 30124102.
144. Ali SN, Bazzano LA. Hyponatremia in Association With Second-Generation Antipsychotics: A Systematic Review of Case Reports. The Ochsner Journal. 2018 Fall;18(3):230-235. doi:10.31486/toj.17.0059. PubMed PMID: 30275787.
145. Ogilvie RP, Bazzano LA, Gustat J, Harville EW, Chen W, Patel SR. Sex and race differences in the association between sleep duration and adiposity: the Bogalusa Heart Study. In Press: Sleep Health. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleh.2018.10.010
146. Zhang T, Xu J, Li S, Bazzano LA, He J, Whelton PK, Chen W. Trajectories of childhood BMI and adult diabetes: the Bogalusa Heart Study. Diabetologia. 2019 Jan;62(1):70-77. doi: 10.1007/s00125-018-4753-5. Epub 2018 Oct 20. PubMed PMID:30343393.
147. Pollock BD, Stuchlik P, Harville EW, Mills KT, Tang W, Chen W, Bazzano LA. Life course trajectories of cardiovascular risk: Impact on atherosclerotic and metabolic indicators.
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 28 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 41 of 64 PageID #: 178
1/7/2020
Atherosclerosis. 2018 Nov 8;280:21-27. doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2018.11.008. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID:30453117.
148. Price-Haywood EG, Harden-Barrios J, Carr C, Reddy L, Bazzano LA, van Driel ML. Patient-reported outcomes in stroke clinical trials 2002-2016: a systematic review. Qual Life Res. 2018 Nov 21. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-2053-7. [Epub ahead of print]. PubMed PMID: 30465318.
149. Liu Y, Yan Y, Yang X, Li S, Bazzano L, He J, Chen W. Long-Term Burden of Higher Body Mass Index and Adult Arterial Stiffness Are Linked Predominantly Through Elevated Blood Pressure. Hypertension. 2019 Jan;73(1):229-234. doi:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA. 118.12106. PubMed PMID: 30571556; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6310035.
150. Harville EW, Apolzan JW, Bazzano LA. Maternal Pre-Pregnancy Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Offspring and Grand-offspring Health: Bogalusa Daughters. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Dec 21;16(1). pii: E15. doi:10.3390/ijerph16010015. PubMed PMID: 30577626.
151. Koskinen J, Juonala M, Dwyer T, Venn A, Petkeviciene J, Čeponienė I, Bazzano L, Chen W, Sabin MA, Burns TL, Viikari JSA, Woo JG, Urbina EM, Prineas R, Hutri-Kähönen N, Sinaiko A, Jacobs DR Jr, Steinberger J, Daniels S, Raitakari O, Magnussen CG. Utility of Different Blood Pressure Measurement Components in Childhood to Predict Adult Carotid Intima-Media Thickness. Hypertension. 2019 Feb;73(2):335-341. doi: 10.1161/ HYPERTENSIONAHA.118.12225. PubMed PMID: 30580683; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6326843.
152. Hu T, Jacobs DR, Bazzano LA, Bertoni AG, Steffen LM. Low-carbohydrate diets and prevalence, incidence and progression of coronary artery calcium in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). Br J Nutr. 2019 Jan 11:1-8. doi: 10.1017/S0007114518003513. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 30630542
153. Zhang T, Whelton PK, Xi B, Krousel-Wood M, Bazzano L, He J, Chen W, Li S. Rate of change in body mass index at different ages during childhood and adult obesity risk. Pediatr Obes. 2019 Jan 31:e12513. doi: 10.1111/ijpo.12513. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 30702812.
154. Du T, Fernandez C, Barshop R, Guo Y, Krousel-Wood M, Chen W, Qi L, Harville E, Mauvais-Jarvis F, Fonseca V, Bazzano L. Sex Differences in Cardiovascular Risk Profile From Childhood to Midlife Between Individuals Who Did and Did Not Develop Diabetes at Follow-up: The Bogalusa Heart Study. Diabetes Care. 2019 Jan 28. pii: dc182029. doi: 10.2337/dc18-2029. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 30692238.
155. Harville EW, Guralnik J, Romero M, Bazzano LA. Reproductive History and Cognitive Aging: The Bogalusa Heart Study. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2019 Jul 5. pii: S10647481(19)30427-0. doi: 10.1016/j.jagp.2019.07.002. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 31350162.
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 29 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 42 of 64 PageID #: 179
1/7/2020
156. Merino J, Guasch-Ferré M, Ellervik C, Dashti HS, Sharp SJ, Wu P, Overvad K, Sarnowski C, Kuokkanen M, Lemaitre RN, Justice AE, Ericson U, Braun KVE, Mahendran Y, FrazierWood AC, Sun D, Chu AY, Tanaka T, Luan J, Hong J, Tjønneland A, Ding M, Lundqvist A, Mukamal K, Rohde R, Schulz CA, Franco OH, Grarup N, Chen YI, Bazzano L, Franks PW, Buring JE, Langenberg C, Liu CT, Hansen T, Jensen MK, Sääksjärvi K, Psaty BM, Young KL, Hindy G, Sandholt CH, Ridker PM, Ordovas JM, Meigs JB, Pedersen O, Kraft P, Perola M, North KE, Orho-Melander M, Voortman T, Toft U, Rotter JI, Qi L, Forouhi NG, Mozaffarian D, Sørensen TIA, Stampfer MJ, Männistö S, Selvin E, Imamura F, Salomaa V, Hu FB, Wareham NJ, Dupuis J, Smith CE, Kilpeläinen TO, Chasman DI, Florez JC. Quality of dietary fat and genetic risk of type 2 diabetes: individual participant data meta-analysis. BMJ. 2019 Jul 25;366:l4292. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4292. Erratum in: BMJ. 2019 Oct 9; 367: l5612. PubMed PMID: 31345923; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6652797.
157. Shi M, Bazzano LA, He J, Gu X, Li C, Li S, Yaffe K, Kinchen JM, Stuchlik P, Mi X, Nierenberg JL, Razavi AC, Kelly TN. Novel serum metabolites associate with cognition phenotypes among Bogalusa Heart Study participants. Aging (Albany NY). 2019 Jul 21;11(14):5124-5139. doi: 10.18632/aging.102107. PubMed PMID: 31327759.
158. Du T, Fernandez C, Barshop R, Fonseca V, Chen W, Bazzano LA. Variabilities in Childhood Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Incident Diabetes in Adulthood: The Bogalusa Heart Study. Diabetes Care. 2019 Jul 18. pii: dc190430. doi: 10.2337/dc19-0430. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 31320447.
159. Polonsky TS, Tian L, Zhang D, Bazzano LA, Criqui MH, Ferrucci L, Guralnik JM, Kibbe MR, Leeuwenburgh C, Sufit RL, McDermott MM. Associations of Weight Change With Changes in Calf Muscle Characteristics and Functional Decline in Peripheral Artery Disease. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Jul 2;8(13):e010890. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.010890. Epub 2019 Jun 29. PubMed PMID: 31257970; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6662373.
160. Ludwig DS, Astrup A, Bazzano LA, Ebbeling CB, Heymsfield SB, King JC, Willett WC. Ultra-Processed Food and Obesity: The Pitfalls of Extrapolation from Short Studies. Cell Metab. 2019 Jul 2;30(1):3-4. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2019.06.004. Epub 2019 Jun 20. PubMed PMID: 31230987.
161. Dashti HS, Merino J, Lane JM, Song Y, Smith CE, Tanaka T, McKeown NM, Tucker C, Sun D, Bartz TM, Li-Gao R, Nisa H, Reutrakul S, Lemaitre RN, Alshehri TM, de Mutsert R, Bazzano L, Qi L, Knutson KL, Psaty BM, Mook-Kanamori DO, Perica VB, Neuhouser ML, Scheer FAJL, Rutter MK, Garaulet M, Saxena R. Genome-wide association study of breakfast skipping links clock regulation with food timing. Am J Clin Nutr. 2019 Aug 1;110(2):473-484. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqz076. PubMed PMID: 31190057; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6669061.
162. Razavi AC, Potts KS, Kelly TN, Bazzano LA. Sex, gut microbiome, and cardiovascular disease risk. Biol Sex Differ. 2019 Jun 10;10(1):29. doi:10.1186/s13293-019-0240-z. Review. PubMed PMID: 31182162; PubMed Central PMCID:PMC6558780.
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 30 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 43 of 64 PageID #: 180
1/7/2020
163. Fortune NC, Harville EW, Guralnik JM, Gustat J, Chen W, Qi L, Bazzano LA. Dietary intake and cognitive function: evidence from the Bogalusa Heart Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2019 Jun 1;109(6):1656-1663. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqz026. PubMed PMID: 31136655.
164. Urbina EM, Khoury PR, Bazzano L, Burns TL, Daniels S, Dwyer T, Hu T, Jacobs DR Jr, Juonala M, Prineas R, Raitakari O, Steinberger J, Venn A, Woo JG, Sinaiko A. Relation of Blood Pressure in Childhood to Self-Reported Hypertension in Adulthood. Hypertension. 2019 Jun;73(6):1224-1230. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.118.12334. PubMed PMID: 31067199; PubMed Central PMCID:PMC6510248.
165. Carmichael O, Stuchlik P, Pillai S, Biessels GJ, Dhullipudi R, Madden-Rusnak A, Martin S, Hsia DS, Fonseca V, Bazzano L. High-normal adolescent fasting plasma glucose is associated with poorer midlife brain health: Bogalusa Heart Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019 May 6. pii: jc.2018-02750. doi: 10.1210/jc.2018-02750. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 31058974.
166. Du T, Fernandez C, Barshop R, Chen W, Urbina EM, Bazzano LA. 2017 Pediatric Hypertension Guidelines Improve Prediction of Adult Cardiovascular Outcomes. Hypertension. 2019 Jun;73(6):1217-1223. PubMed PMID: 31006329; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6673663.
167. Li C, He J, Li S, Chen W, Bazzano L, Sun X, Shen L, Liang L, Shen Y, Gu X, Kelly TN. Novel Metabolites Are Associated with Augmentation Index and Pulse Wave Velocity: Findings From the Bogalusa Heart Study. Am J Hypertens. 2019 May 9;32(6):547-556. PubMed PMID: 30953049; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6508455.
168. Harville EW, Breckner D, Shu T, Cooper M, Bazzano LA. Establishing a three-generation prospective study: Bogalusa daughters. J Dev Orig Health Dis. 2019 Jun 20:1-8. doi: 10.1017/S2040174419000357. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 31218984; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6923610.
169. Sun D, Zhang T, Su S, Hao G, Chen T, Li QZ, Bazzano L, He J, Wang X, Li S, Chen W. Body Mass Index Drives Changes in DNA Methylation: A Longitudinal Study. Circulation Research. 2019 Oct 11;125(9):824-33.
170. Harville EW, Mishra GD, Yeung E, Mumford SL, Schisterman EF, Jukic AM, Hatch EE, Mikkelsen EM, Jiang H, Ehrenthal DB, Porucznik CA, Stanford JB, Wen SW, Harvey A, Downs DS, Yajnik C, Santillan D, Santillan M, McElrath TF, Woo JG, Urbina EM, Chavarro JE, Sotres‐Alvarez D, Bazzano L, Zhang J, Steiner A, Gunderson EP, Wise LA. The Preconception Period analysis of Risks and Exposures Influencing health and Development (PrePARED) consortium. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology. 2019 Nov 1;33(6):490-502.
171. Sun X, Gustat J, Bertisch SM, Redline S, Bazzano L. The association between sleep chronotype and obesity among black and white participants of the Bogalusa Heart Study. Chronobiology International. 2019 Nov 22:1-12.
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 31 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 44 of 64 PageID #: 181
1/7/2020
172. Woo JG, Zhang N, Fenchel M, Jacobs DR Jr, Hu T, Urbina EM, Burns TL, Raitakari O, Steinberger J, Bazzano L, Prineas RJ, Jaquish C, Juonala M, Ryder JR, Daniels SR, Sinaiko A, Dwyer T, Venn A. Prediction of adult class II/III obesity from childhood BMI: the i3C consortium. Int J Obes (Lond). 2019 Oct 9. doi:10.1038/s41366-019-0461-6. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 31597933.
173. Kartiosuo N, Ramakrishnan R, Lemeshow S, Juonala M, Burns TL, Woo JG, Jacobs DR Jr, Daniels SR, Venn A, Steinberger J, Urbina EM, Bazzano L, Sabin MA, Hu T, Prineas RJ, Sinaiko AR, Pahkala K, Raitakari O, Dwyer T. Predicting overweight and obesity in young adulthood from childhood body-mass index: comparison of cutoffs derived from longitudinal and cross-sectional data. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2019 Nov;3(11):795-802. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(19)30204-4. Epub 2019 Aug 23. PubMed PMID: 31451394.
174. Yan Y, Li S, Liu Y, Bazzano L, He J, Mi J, Chen W. Temporal relationship between inflammation and insulin resistance and their joint effect on hyperglycemia: the Bogalusa Heart Study. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2019 Aug 23;18(1):109. doi: 10.1186/s12933-019-0913-2. PubMed PMID: 31443647; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6706925.
175. Yan Y, Bazzano LA, Juonala M, Raitakari OT, Viikari JSA, Prineas R, Dwyer T, Sinaiko A, Burns TL, Daniels SR, Woo JG, Khoury PR, Urbina EM, Jacobs DR Jr, Hu T, Steinberger J, Venn A, Chen W. Long-Term Burden of Increased Body Mass Index from Childhood on Adult Dyslipidemia: The i3C Consortium Study. J Clin Med. 2019 Oct 18;8(10). pii: E1725. doi: 10.3390/jcm8101725. PubMed PMID:31635325; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6832308.
Books and Book Chapters
1. Bazzano LA, He J. Lifestyle modification for hypertension. In: Lip GYH, Hall JE. Eds. Comprehensive Hypertension. Mosby Elsevier: Philadelphia. 2007:63-76.
2. Bazzano LA, He J, Whelton PK. Blood pressure in westernized and isolated populations. . In: Lip GYH, Hall JE. Eds. Comprehensive Hypertension. Mosby Elsevier: Philadelphia. 2007:2130.
3. Bazzano LA, Pogribna U, Whelton PK. Hypertension. In: Heggenhougen K, Quah S, Eds. International Encyclopedia of Public Health, Vol 3. Academic Press: San Diego. 2008:501513.
4. Bazzano LA. Epidemiologic evidence for the effects of fruits and vegetables on cardiovascular disease, diabetes and obesity. In: Thomas-Barberan FA, Gil MI. Eds. Improving the healthpromoting properties of fruit and vegetable products. Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK. 2008:119-137.
5. Bazzano LA, Fotino DA. Fruit and vegetable consumption, hypertension and risk of stroke. In: Mancini M, Ordovas J, Riccardi G, Rubba P, Strazzullo P. Eds. Nutritional and Metabolic Bases of Cardiovascular Disease. Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK. 2011:330-336.
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 32 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 45 of 64 PageID #: 182 1/7/2020
Editorial, Commentary and Letters
1. Bazzano LA. Estrogen-progestin replacement and risk of breast cancer. (letter) JAMA. 2000; 269:691.
2. Bazzano LA, He J. Dietary potassium intake and risk of stroke (letter) Stroke. 2002; 33:11789.
3. Bazzano LA, He J. Copper in legumes may lower heart disease risk (letter). Arch Intern Med. 2002; 162:1780-1.
4. Bazzano LA. The high cost of not eating fruits and vegetables (editorial). J Am Diet Assn. 2006; 106: 1364-1368.
5. Bazzano LA. Lower rates of heart failure and death in acute coronary syndromes (letter). JAMA. 2007; 298: 969-70.
6. Bazzano LA. No effect of folic acid supplementation on cardiovascular events, cancer or mortality after 5 years in people at increased cardiovascular risk, although homocysteine levels are reduced. (invited commentary) Evid Based Med. 2011;16:117-8
7. Bazzano LA, Tingting D. Long-term effects of insulin resistance on appendicular lean muscle. (editorial) J Diabetes Complications. 2019 Jan;33(1):13-14.doi:10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2018. 10.019. Epub 2018 Nov 9. PubMed PMID: 30522791.
8. McDonald S, McGree J, Bazzano L. Finding Benefit in n-of-1 Trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Mar 1;179(3):454-455. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8382. PubMed PMID: 30830190.
Meeting Proceedings and Statements
1. Bazzano LA. Dietary intake of fruits and vegetables and risk of diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular diseases (CVD). Report on the Joint FAO/WHO Workshop on Fruit and Vegetables for Health. Kobe, Japan. 1-3 September, 2004. Accessible at www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/fruit/en
2. Scientific Consensus Statement: Nutrition Science, Pasta Meals, and the Healthy Mediterranean Diet. Sponsored by Oldways Preservation Trust. Rome Italy. February 16-18, 2004.
Published Abstracts
1. Bazzano LA, He J, Ogden LG, Vupputuri S, Loria C, Whelton PK. Vegetable and fruit intake and risk of cardiovascular disease in U.S. general population: NHANES I Epidemiologic
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 33 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 46 of 64 PageID #: 183
1/7/2020
Follow-Up Study. Presented at the 40th Annual Conference on Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention. La Jolla, CA, March 2000.
2. Bazzano LA, He J, Ogden LG, Vupputuri S, Loria C, Whelton PK. Bean intake and risk of coronary heart disease in U.S. general population: NHANES I Epidemiologic Follow-Up Study. Presented at the 40th Annual Conference on Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention. La Jolla, CA, March 2000.
3. He J, Ogden LG, Bazzano LA, Vupputuri S, Loria C, Whelton PK. Dietary sodium intake and incidence of congestive heart failure in overweight U.S. men and women: NHANES I Epidemiologic Follow-Up Study. Presented at the American Hypertension Society Fifteenth Scientific Meeting. New York, NY. Am J Hyeprtens 2000;13:6A.
4. Bazzano LA, He J, Ogden LG, Vupputuri S, Loria C, Myers L, Whelton PK. Dietary intake of folic acid and reduced risk of stroke in U.S. men and women: NHANES I Epidemiologic Follow-Up Study. Presented at the Scientific Sessions 2000, American Heart Association. Circulation 2000;102:II-861. Abstract #4133.
5. Vupputuri S, He J, Batuman V, Ogden LG, Bazzano LA, Loria C, Whelton PK. Relationship between blood lead and blood pressure among Whites and African-Americans: The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III). Presented at the Scientific Sessions 2000, American Heart Association, Circulation 2000;102:II-844. Abstract #4054.
6. Bazzano LA, He J, Ogden LG, Vupputuri S, Loria C, Myers L, Whelton PK. Dietary vitamin E intake and risk of coronary heart disease in a representative sample of U.S. adults: NHANES I Epidemiologic Follow-Up Study. Presented at the 41st Annual conference on Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention. San Antonio, TX, March 2001. Circulation 2001;103:1366. Abstract #P78.
7. He J, Bazzano LA, Ogden LG, Vupputuri S, Loria CM, Myers L, Whelton PK. Dietary fiber intake and reduced risk of coronary heart disease in U.S. men and women. Presented at the 41st Annual Conference on Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention. San Antonio, TX, March 2001. Circulation 2001;103:1366-C. Abstract #P81.
8. Bazzano LA, He J, Muntner P, Vupputuri S, Whelton PK. Relationship between smoking status and serum C-reactive protein in a representative sample of U.S. men and women. Presented at the 42nd Annual Conference on Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention. Hawaii, April 2002, Abstract #P5.
9. Vupputuri S, He J, Muntner P, Bazzano LA, Sherwin R, Lefante J, Whelton PK, Batuman V. Effect of blood pressure on early decline in renal function among hypertensive men. Presented at the 42nd Annual Conference on Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention. Hawaii, April 2002, Abstract #313.
10. Bazzano LA. Relationship between smoking status and apolipoprotein A-I, apolipoprotein B, and lipoprotein(a) in a representative sample of U.S. men and women. Presented at the 44th Annual Conference on Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention of American
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 34 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 47 of 64 PageID #: 184
1/7/2020
Heart Association. San Francisco, CA, March 3-6, 2004. Circulation 2004;109:23. Abstract#P89.
11. Bazzano LA, Gu D, Reynolds K, Wu X, Chen CS, Duan X, Wildman RP, He J. Alcohol consumption and risk of stroke among Chinese men. Presented at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2006. Chicago, IL, November 12-15. Circulation 2006;114:II833-4. Abstract #3886.
12. Wildman RP, Gu D, Reynolds K, Wu X, Chen CS, Bazzano LA, Duan X, He J. Changes in modifiable cardiovascular risk factors over 9 years in Chinese adults. Presented at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2006. Chicago, IL, November 12-15. Circulation 2006;114:II897-8. Abstract #4159.
13. Bazzano LA, Khan Z, Reynolds K, He J. The effect of continuous positive airway pressure on blood pressure in persons with obstructive sleep apnea: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Southern Regional Meetings, February 25-27, 2007, New Orleans, LA. J Investig Med. 2007;55:S310.
14. Bazzano LA, Gu D, Reynolds K, Wu X, Chen CS, Duan X, Wildman PK, Klag MJ, Whelton PK, He J. Alcohol consumption and risk of myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease among Chinese men. Presented at the 47th Annual Conference on Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention. Orlando, FL. February 28-March 3, 2007. Circulation 2007;115(8): e237. Abstract #P67
15. He J, Gu D, Chen J, Wu X, Duan X, Chen CS, Reynolds K, Bazzano LA, Whelton PK. Mortality and hypertension in China. A prospective study of 169,871 men and women. Presented at the 47th Annual Conference on cardiovascular disease Epidemiology and Prevention. Orlando, FL. February 28-March 3, 2007. Circulation 2007;115(8): e254. Abstract #P153.
16. Wildman RP, Gu D, Muntner P, Reyonlds K, Wu X, Chen CS, Bazzano LA, Duan X, He J. Trends in the prevalence of hypertension in Chinese adults: 1990-1991 to 1999-2000. Presented at the 47th Annual conference on Cardiovascular diseas epidemiology and Prevention. Orlando, FL. February 28-March3, 2007. Circulation 2007;115(8): e255. Abstract#P157.
17. Reynolds K, Gu D, Bazzano LA, Wildman RP, Wu X, Chen CS, Duan X, He J. Alcohol consumption and mortality among men and women. Presented at the 47th Annual conference on Cardiovascular diseas epidemiology and Prevention. Orlando, FL. February 28-March3, 2007. Circulation 2007;115(8): e279. Abstract#P272.
18. He J, Gu D, Wu X, Chen CS, Duan X, Bazzano LA, Chen J, Reynolds K, Klag MJ, Whelton PK. Mortality and smoking in China: A prospective study of 169,871 men and women. Presented at the 47th Annual Conference on Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention of the American Heart Association. Orlando, FL. February 28-March 3, 2007. Circulation 2007;115(8): e280. Abstract#P276.
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 35 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 48 of 64 PageID #: 185
1/7/2020
19. Zhang Y, Reilly K, Tong W, Xu T, Chen J, Bazzano L, Qiao D, Ju Z, Chen C, He J. Blood pressure and clinical outcome among patients with acute stroke in Inner Mongolia, China. 18th Scientific Meeting of the European Society of Hypertension/22nd Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Hypertension. Berlin, Germany. Jun 14-19, 2008. J Hypertens. 2008:26:S395.
20. Fotino D, Makeen A, Pogribna L, Bazzano LA. Knowledge and awareness of current guidelines in prevention and treatment of hypertension. Southern Regional Meetings, February 12-14, 2008, New Orleans, LA. J Investig Med. 2008;56:404.
21. Reilly KH, Gu D, Duan X, Wu X, Huang J, Chen JC, Chen CS, Kelly TN, Bazzano LA, He J. Risk factors for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease mortality in Chinese adults. Presented at the 48th Annual Conference on Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention of the American Heart Association, March 13-15, 2008, Colorado Springs, Colorado. Circulation. 2008; 117(11):e280. Abstract#P327.
22. Bazzano LA, Patel DA, Chen W, Srinivasan S, McIlwain E, Berenson GS. Risk factors for left ventricular dilation in young adults: The Bogalusa Heart Study. Presented at the 48th Annual Conference on Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention of the American Heart Association, March 13-15, 2008, Colorado Springs, Colorado. Circulation. 2008; 117(11):e280. Abstract#P269.
23. Bazzano LA, Tees MT, Nguyen CH. Effect of non-soy legume consumption on cholesterol levels: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Presented at the Scientific Sessions of the American Heart Association 2008. New Orleans, LA, November 8-12. Abstract#3272. Circulation. 2008; 118:18:S_112.
24. Bazzano LA, Gu D, Chen J, Huang J, Rao DC, Jaquish CE, Hixson JE, Chen CS, Chen JC, Duan X, Rice T, Kelly TN, Hamm LL, Whelton PK, He J. Effect of Dietary Sodium and Potassium Intervention on Blood Lipids. Presented at the 49th Annual Conference on Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention of the American Heart Association, March 10-13, 2009, Palm Harbor, FL. Circulation. 2009; 119(11):e321. Abstract#P179.
25. Kerisit KG, Boh EE, Bazzano LA. Psoriasis and Cardiovascular Risk Factors: A US Population-Based Cross-sectional Study. Southern Regional Meetings, February 25-27,2010, New Orleans, LA. J Investig Med. 2010;58:473.
26. Thompson AM, Zhang Y, Tong W, Xu T, Chen J, Zhao L, Kelly TN, Chen C-S, Bazzano LA, He J. Association of Inflammation, Endothelial Dysfunction, and Glycemic Status in Adults in Inner Mongolia, China. Presented at the 50th Annual Conference on Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention of the American Heart Association, March 3-6, 2010, San Fransisco, CA. Circulation. 2010; Abstract#P132.
27. Thompson AM, Zhang Y, Tong W, Xu T, Chen J, Zhao L, Kelly TN, Chen C-S, Bazzano LA, He J. Association of Obesity and Biomarkers of Inflammation and Endothelial Dysfunction in Adults in Inner Mongolia, China. Presented at the 50th Annual Conference on Cardiovascular
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 36 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 49 of 64 PageID #: 186
1/7/2020
Disease Epidemiology and Prevention of the American Heart Association, March 3-6, 2010, San Fransisco, CA. Circulation. 2010; Abstract#P158.
28. Miller ER, Juraschek S, Pastor- Barriuso R, Bazzano LA, Appel L, Guallar E. Systematic Review of Homocysteine-Lowering Trials with Folic Acid to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease: Do Baseline Homocysteine Levels Matter? Presented at the 50th Annual Conference on Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention of the American Heart Association, March 3-6, 2010, San Fransisco, CA. Oral Presentation #14.
29. Bazzano LA, Gu D, Chen J, Huang J, Rao DC, Jaquish CE, Hixson JE, Chen CS, Chen JC, Duan X, Rice T, Kelly TN, Hamm LL, Whelton PK, He J. Effect of Dietary Sodium and Potassium Intervention on Blood Glucose. Presented at the Experimental Biology 2010, March 24-28, 2010, Anaheim, CA. FASEB J. 2010; Abstract#739.2.
30. Bazzano LA, Balaram M, Cohan J, Fink JC, Jamerson KA, Lash JP, Makos GK, Robinson N, Steigerwalt SP, Tao K, Theurer JR, Xie D, Hsu C, CRIC Study Investigators. Alcohol, Tobacco and Illicit Drug Use and Progression of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD). Presented at the American Society of Nephrology, Renal Week 2010, November 16-21, Denver, CO. Abstract #SA-PO2419.
31. Das A, Bazzano L, Lash JP, Akkina S. Illicit Drug Use and Chronic Kidney Disease: Findings from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Presented at the American Society of Nephrology, Renal Week 2010, November 16-21, Denver, CO. Abstract# F-PO1961
32. Rebholz CM, Gu D, Chen J, Huang J, Cao J, Chen J-C, Li J, Lu F, Mu J, Ma J, Hu D, Ji X, Bazzano LA, Liu D, He J. Physical Activity Decreases Salt Sensitivity of Blood Pressure: The GenSalt Study. Presented at the 51st Annual Conference on Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention of the American Heart Association, March 23-25, 2011, Atlanta, GA. Abstract#MP7.
33. Thompson AM, Hu T, Eshelbrenner CL, Reynolds K, He J, Bazzano LA. Effect of Antihypertensive Treatment on Cardiovascular Disease Events among Persons without Hypertension: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Presented at the 51st Annual Conference on Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention of the American Heart Association, March 23-25, 2011, Atlanta, GA. Abstract#P328.
34. Fischer MJ, Ricardo AC, Yang W, Lora CM, Anderson AH, Bazzano L, Cuevas MM, Hsu CY, Kusek JW, Lopez A, Ojo AO, Raj DS, Rosas SE, Rosen L, Teal VL, Yaffe K, Lash JP. CRIC Study Group. Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) Progression and Death among Hispanics and Non-Hispanics in the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) Study. Presented at the American Society of Nephrology, Renal Week 2011, November 10-13, Philadelphia, PA. Abstract # FR-OR193.
35. Scialla J, Appel L, Wolf M, Yang W, Zhang X, Miller E, Sozio S, Bazzano L, Cuevas M, Glenn M, Kallem K, Lustigova E, Porter A, Townsend R, Weir M, Anderson C. Plant Protein Intake Is Associated with Fibroblast Growth Factor 23 and Serum Bicarbonate in Patients with
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 37 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 50 of 64 PageID #: 187
1/7/2020
CKD: The Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort Study. American Society of Nephrology, Renal Week 2011, November 10-13, Philadelphia, PA. Abstract #21730, Poster #TH-PO302
36. Hu T, Mills KT, Demanelis K, Eloustaz M, He J, Kelly TN, Bazzano LA. Effect of low carbohydrate diet versus low fat diet on metabolic risk factors: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Presented at the SE Regional IDeA Meeting, September 22-24, 2011, New Orleans, LA.
37. Bazzano LA, Reynolds K, Hu T, Yao L, Bunol C, Liu Y, Chen CS, He J. Effect of A LowCarbohydrate Diet on Weight and Cardiovascular Risk Factors: A Randomized Controlled Trial American Heart Association, May 17, 2012. San Diego. Circulation. 125:AP306.
38. Zhao Q, Bazzano LA, Cao J, Li J, Chen J-C, Huang J, Chen J, Kelly TN, Chen C-S, Hu D, Ma J, Rice TK, He J, Gu D. Reproducibility of Blood Pressure Response to Cold Pressor Test: the GenSalt Study. American Heart Association, May 13, 2012. San Diego. Circulation. 125:AP234.
39. Thompson AP, He J, Krousel-Wood MA, Mei H, Webber LS, Bazzano LA. Effect of Hurricane Katrina on Medication Adherence and Blood Pressure among Hypertensive Veterans. American Heart Association, May 13, 2012. San Diego. Circulation. 125:AP048.
40. Hu T, Mills KT, Yao L, Demanelis K, Eloustaz M, Kelly T, He J, Bazzano LA. Effect of low carbohydrate diets versus low fat diets on cardiovascular risk factors: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. American Heart Association, May 17, 2012. San Diego. Circulation. 125:AMP60.
41. Cauble S, Abbas A, Bazzano L, Medvedev SF, Medvedev S, Balart LA, Shores NJ. Are men and women treated differently with regard to hepatocellular carcinoma? Analysis of an inpatient database from academic medical centers at the University Health System Consortium. Digestive Disease Week, May 19-22, 2012, San Diego, CA. Oral presentation.
42. Medvedev SF, Abbas A, Medvedev S, Bazzano L, Shores NJ, Borum ML, Balart LA. Racial disparity in hepatocellular carcinoma in presentation, treatment, and mortality: Analysis of a nationwide inpatient database. Digestive Disease Week, May 19-22, 2012, San Diego, CA. Oral presentation.
43. Abbas A, Shores NJ, Medvedev SF, Bazzano L, Medvedev S, Balart LA. Extra-hepatic recurrence after non-transplant treatment in hepatocellular carcinoma: Analysis of a nationwide inpatient database. International Liver Congress of the European Association for the Study of the Liver, April 18-22, 2012, Barcelona, Spain.
44. Abbas A, Shores NJ, Medvedev SF, Bazzano L, Medvedev S, Balart LA. Trends in treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: Analysis of a nationwide inpatient database. International Liver Congress of the European Association for the Study of the Liver, April 18-22, 2012, Barcelona, Spain.
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 38 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 51 of 64 PageID #: 188
1/7/2020
45. Abbas A, Shores NJ, Medvedev SF, Bazzano L, Medvedev S, Balart LA. Sites and survival of metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma: Analysis of a nationwide inpatient database. International Liver Congress of the European Association for the Study of the Liver, April 18-22, 2012, Barcelona, Spain.
46. Fischer MJ, Ricardo AC, Jordan N, Diamantidis CJ, Xie D, Teal VL, Anderson AH, Bazzano L, Chen J, Kusek JW, Yaffe K, Powe NR, and Lash JP, Brown J for the CRIC Study Group. Depressive Symptoms and Health Outcomes among Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: Findings from the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) Study. Presented at the American Society of Nephrology, Renal Week 2012, October 30-Novermber 4th, San Diego, CA.
47. Bertisch S,. Thompson AM, Bazzano LA, Patel SR, Kaptchuk TJ, Smetana GW. The placebo effect on sleepiness in obstructive sleep apnea: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Annual Meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies, June 9-13, 2012, Boston, MA, Poster #0587
48. Jamil I, Baijnath C, Bazzano L, Anderson D. Chylous ascites in a patient with autism. 14th Annual Southern Hospital Medicine Conference (2013) Abstract. Ochsner J. Spring 2014;14(1);e11.
49. Jamil I, Lee J, Shaw J, Bazzano L. Coma as you are: depression or hypothyroidism? 14th Annual Southern Hospital Medicine Conference (2013) Abstract. Ochsner J. Spring 2014;14(1);e11.
50. Jamil I, Bazzano L, Meadows R, An Q. Retrospective analysis of systemic-level factors associated with severe inpatient hypoglycemia. 14th Annual Southern Hospital Medicine Conference (2013) Abstract. Ochsner J. Spring 2014;14(1);e21.
51. Hu T, Jacobs D., Nettleton J, Steffen L, Bertoni A, He J, Bazzano LA. Low-carbohydrate diets and incidence, prevalence, and progression of coronary artery calcium in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). American Heart Association Epidemiology and Prevention/Nutrition, Physical Activity and Metabolism 2014 Scientific Sessions, March 20, 2014, San Francisco, California. Poster # P329.
52. Hu T, Bertisch S, Chen W, Gustat J, Webber L, Li S, Bazzano LA. Patterns of Childhood Obesity and Relation to Middle-Age Sleep Apnea Risk: The Bogalusa Heart Study. American Heart Association Epidemiology and Prevention/Nutrition, Physical Activity and Metabolism 2014 Scientific Sessions, March 18, 2014, San Francisco, California. Poster # P103.
53. Hu T, Bertisch S, Chen W, Gustat J, Webber L, Li S, Bazzano LA. Change in Measures of Adiposity in Young Adulthood and Middle-Age Sleep Apnea Risk: The Bogalusa Heart Study. American Heart Association Epidemiology and Prevention/Nutrition, Physical Activity and Metabolism 2014 Scientific Sessions, March 18, 2014, San Francisco, California. Poster # P104.
54. Breault J, Bazzano L, Gaudreau S. IRB Education Using Edward Tufte’s Insights. 2014 AAHRPP Conference: Quality Human Research Programs “Leading the Way: From the Essentials to the Cutting Edge”, April 23, 2014, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 39 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 52 of 64 PageID #: 189
1/7/2020
55. Hu T, Stuchlik P, Yao L, Reynolds K, Whelton P, He J, Bazzano L. Adherence to Low Carbohydrate and Low Fat Diets in Relation to Weight Loss and Cardiovascular Risk Factor Reduction. Circulation. 2015;131:AMP26.
56. Hu T, Bertisch S, Chen W, Harville E, Redline S, Bazzano L. Duration of Childhood Obesity and Relation to Middle-Age Obstructive Sleep Apnea Risk: The Bogalusa Heart Study. American Heart Association Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyles and Cardiometabolic Health 2015 Scientific Sessions, March 3, 2015, Baltimore, Maryland. Poster # P139.
57. Zhao Q, Yang W, Bazzano L, Whelton P, Chen C, Xiao J, He J. Potential Impact of the 2014 High Blood Pressure Guideline on Adults in China and the US. American Heart Association Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyles and Cardiometabolic Health 2015 Scientific Sessions, March 3, 2015, Baltimore, Maryland. Poster # P205.
58. Hu T, Bertisch S, Chen W, Harville E, Redline S, Bazzano L. Risk of Sleep Apnea and Subclinical Cardiovascular Disease in Young-to-Middle Aged Adults: The Bogalusa Heart Study. American Heart Association Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyles and Cardiometabolic Health 2015 Scientific Sessions, March 3, 2015, Baltimore, Maryland. Abstract # MP68.
59. Rebholz CM, Anderson CA, Grams ME, Bazzano LA, Crews DC, Chang AR, Coresh J, Appel LJ. Abstract 10922: Relationship of the AHA Impact Goals (Life’s Simple 7) With Risk of Chronic Kidney Disease: Results From the ARIC Cohort Study. Circulation. 2015;132:A10922.
60. Stuchlik P, Allen N, Harville E, Chen W, Bazzano L. Abstract 18557: Cardiovascular Risk Factor Trajectories From Childhood to Adulthood and Depression in Middle Age: The Bogalusa Heart Study. Circulation. 2015;132:A18557.
61. Pollock BD, Chen W, Harville EW, Zhao Q, Bazzano LA. Anger during young adulthood increases coronary heart disease risk. Circulation. 2016;133:AP208
62. Pollock BD, Stuchlik P, Fernandez C, Barshop R, Hussain A, Shu T, Guralnik JM, Gustat J, Webber LS, Chen W, Harville EW, Bazzano LA. Effect of life-course interactions between sex, age, and lipoprotein profiles on mid-life physical performance. Circulation. 2016;134:A18837
63. Kelly T, Ajami NJ, Bazzano LA, Zhao J, Petrosino J, He J. Gut Microbiota Diversity and Specific Microbial Genera Associate with Cardiovascular Disease Risk. Circulation. 2016;133(Suppl_1):AP255
64. Pak KJ, Seoane L, Bakker JP, Bertisch S, Pham C, McNaughton N, Park J, Severensin K, Bazzano LA. Effect of Mobile Health Technology on Positive Airway Pressure Adherence in Patients with Sleep Apnea. American Thoracic Society 2016 International Conference. (Thematic Poster Session May 16, 2016). Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 193;2016:A4185.
65. Pollock BD, Stuchlik P, Fernandez C, Barshop R, Hussain A, Shu T, Guralnik JM, Gustat J , Webber LS, Chen W, Harville EW, Bazzano LA. Life-course interaction between fasting
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 40 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 53 of 64 PageID #: 190
1/7/2020
blood glucose and body mass index affects mid-adulthood physical performance. ADA 76th Scientific Sessions 2016. Abstract #198-LB (Late Breaking Poster Session, June 12th, 2016)
66. Williams L, Peacock E, Bazzano L, Sarpong D, Krousel-Wood MA. Sex-race differences in correlates of complementary and alternative medicine use among hypertensive older adults. Southern Society for Clinical Investigation Regional Meeting. New Orleans. February 2017.
67. Williams L, Peacock E, Bazzano L, Sarpong D, Krousel-Wood MA. Association between antihypertensive medication class and complementary and alternative medicine use among older adults. American Pharmacists Association Annual Meeting. March 2017.
68. Pollock BD, Stuchlik P, Shu T, Guralnik JM, Gustat J, Webber LS, Chen W, Harville EW, Bazzano LA. Relationship of global cardiovascular risk and physical performance in a midlife, bi-racial cohort. Innovation in Aging. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igx004.2899 IAGG.
69. Pollock BD, Stuchlik P, Guralnik JM, Bertisch SM, Redline S, Chen W, Harville EW, Bazzano LA. Relationship between Daytime Sleepiness and Poor Physical Performance in Middle-aged Adults of the Bogalusa Heart Study. Circulation. 2017;135:AMP088
70. Stuchlik P, Fonesca V, Carmichael OT, Gunn W, Bazzano L. Stronger Association Between Type 2 Diabetes and Cognition Over Time. Alzheimer’s & Dimentia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association. Vol 13, Issue 7, July 2017. P1418-P1419.
71. Sun X, Gustat J, Bertisch S, Redline S, Bazzano L. Association Between Sleep Chronotype, Duration and Obesity in the Bogalusa Heart Study. 35th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Obesity Society. 2017. Poster: T-P-3135. October 31, 2017.
72. Inge T, Coley RY, Bazzano L, Xanthakos S, McTigue K, Arterburn D, Williams N, Wellman R, Coleman K, Courcoulas A, Desai N, Anau J, Pardee R, Toh D, Janning C, Cook A, Sturtevant J, Horgan C, Zebrick A, Michalsky M. Comparative Effectiveness of Bariatric Procedures Among Adolescents: The PCORnet Bariatric Study. 35th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Obesity Society. 2017. Poster: T-P-3220. November 1, 2017.
73. Stuchlik P, Gunn W, Pollock B, Barshop R, Qi L, Chen W, Harville E, Bazzano L. Variability in Body Mass Index During Childhood Is Associated With Mid-Life Cognition. 35th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Obesity Society. 2017. Poster: T-P-3407. November 2, 2017.
74. Stuchlik P, Pollack B, Chen W, Harville E, Bazzano L. Sleep Duration and Subclinical Measures of Atherosclerosis in a Bi-Racial Cohort. Circulation. 2017 Nov 14;136(Suppl_1): A19286.
75. Zachariah JP, Fernandez C, Barshop R, Harville E, Chen W, Bazzano L. Associations of Childhood Traits to Adult Aortic Stiffness and Left Ventricular Hypertrophy Vary by Race. Circulation. 2017 Nov 14;136(Suppl_1): A21383.
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 41 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 54 of 64 PageID #: 191
1/7/2020
76. Pollack BD, Hu T, Raitakari OT, Burns TL, Sinaiko AR, Magnussen CG, Urbina EM, Woo JG, Steinberger J, Juonala M, Venn A, Daniela SR, Dwyer T, Jacobs DR, Bazzano LA. Lifecourse Cardiovascular Risk Mobility in the International Childhood Cardiovascular Cohort (i3C) Consortium. Circulation. 2018 March 20;137(Suppl_1):A027.
77. Nierenberg JL, He J, Li C, Li S, Bazzano LA, Chen W, Kelly TN. Serum Metabolites Associate with Kidney Function Among Bogalusa Heart Study Participants. Circulation. 2018 March 20;137(Suppl_1):AMP11.
78. Zhang T, Li S, Bazzano L, He J, Whelton P, Chen W.Trajectories of Childhood Blood Pressure and Adult Left Ventricular Hypertrophy: The Bogalusa Heart Study. Circulation. 29 Jun 2018;137(Suppl_1): AP097.
79. He W, Li C, Mi X, Li S, Bazzano L, Chen W, He J, Kelly T.Serum Metabolites Associate With Blood Pressure Phenotypes in the Bogalusa Heart Study. Circulation. 2018 March 20;137(Suppl_1): AP203.
80. Li S, Li C, Kelly TN, Gu X, Sun X, Bazzano L, Chen W, Whelton PK, He J. Non-targeted Metabolomics Study Identify Multiple Metabolites Associated With Body Mass Index. Circulation. 2018 March 20;137(Suppl_1): AP202.
81. Li C, He J, Li S, Chen W, Bazzano L, Sun X, Shen L, Gu X, Kelly T. Metabolomics Associated With Augmentation Index and Pulse Wave Velocity: Findings From the Bogalusa Heart Study. Circulation. 2018 March 20;137(Suppl_1): AMP65
82. Ogilvie RP, Bazzano L, Gustat J, Harville E, Patel SR. Sleep Duration and Measures of Obesity in a Biracial Cohort: The Bogalusa Heart Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018;197: A7289
83. Stuchlik P, Carmichael O, Harville EW, He H, Romero M, Gustat J, Fonseca V, Bazzano LA. Life-course glucose trajectory and cognitive function in middle age – evidence from the Bogalusa Heart Study. ADA 78th Scientific Sessions 2018. Abstract #1474-P, June 23, 2018
84. Hu T, Sinaiko A, Woo J, Burns T, Steinberger J, Bazzano L, Urbina E, Zhang N, Magnussen C, Venn A, Juonala M. Abstract P207: An Interpretation-Friendly Approach for Model Comparison of Risk Scores for Adult Obesity in the International Childhood Cardiovascular Cohort (I3c) Consortium. AHA Epidemiology Meeting 2018.
85. Khoury M, Khoury P, Hu T, Widome R, Bazzano LB, Burns TL, Daniels SR, Dwyer T, Ikonen J, Juonala M, Kähönen M. Abstract P055: Evaluating the Impact of the New Pediatric Clinical Practice Guideline on the Prevalence of Pediatric Hypertension and Associations With Adult Hypertension: The International Childhood Cardiovascular Cohort (i3C) Consortium. Circulation. 2019 Mar 5;139(Suppl_1):AP055.
86. Cleland V, Tian J, Buscot MJ, Magnussen C, Bazzano LA, Burns TL, Daniels SR, Dwyer T, Jacobs DR, Juonala M, Prineas RJ. Abstract MP66: Body Mass Index Trajectories From Childhood to Adulthood: Evidence From the International Childhood Cardiovascular Cohort (i3C) Consortium. Circulation. 2019 Mar 5;139(Suppl_1):AMP66.
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 42 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 55 of 64 PageID #: 192 1/7/2020
87. Shi M, Bazzano LA, He J, Gu X, Li C, Li S, Yaffe K, Kinchen JM, Stuchlik P, Mi X, Nierenberg JL. Novel serum metabolites associate with cognition phenotypes among Bogalusa Heart Study participants. Aging (Albany NY). 2019 Jul 31;11(14):5124.
88. Chukwurah QC, Bazzano L. Body types and association with depressive symptoms among older adults: Findings from NHANES 2013-2016. Innovation in Aging. 2019 Nov;3(Suppl 1): S270.
89. Razavi AC, Fernandez Alonso C, Kelly TN, He J, Potts KS, Whelton SP, Bazzano LA. Pooled Cohort Equations-Derived Heart Failure Risk Score Predicts Cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in US adults: The NHANES III Follow-Up Study. Circulation. 2019 Nov 19; 140 (Suppl_1): A17113-.
90. Razavi AC, Wong ND, Budoff MJ, Bazzano LA, Kelly TN, He J, Fernandez Alonso C, Lima JA, Polak JF, Mongraw-Chaffin ML, Szklo M. Predictors of Healthy Arterial Aging in Persons with metabolic syndrome and diabetes: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Circulation. 2019 Nov 19; 140 (Suppl_1): A15034.
91. Fernandez C, Razavi A, Barshop R, Guo Y, Bazzano LA. Life course determinants of adult diastolic function: Insights from the Bogalusa Heart Study. Circulation. 2019 Nov 19; 140 (Suppl_1): A17257.
92. Guo Y, Fernandez C, Razavi A, Barshop R, Bazzano LA. Impact of excessive birth weight on body Mass Index Growth Trajectories Over the Life Course: The Bogalusa Heart Study. Circulation. 2019 Nov 19;140(Suppl_1): A17241.
93. Razavi AC, Fernandez C, Bazzano LA, He J, Krousel-Wood MA, Nierenberg J, Shi M, Li C, Mi X, Li S, Kinchen J. Abstract P1125: Serum Metabolite 1-Methylhistidine, a Marker of Red Meat and Poultry Consumption, Independently Associates With Increases in Systolic and Diastolic Blood Pressure in Middle-Aged Adults. Hypertension. 2019 Sep; 74(Suppl_1): AP1125.
Other - Doctoral Dissertation
Bazzano LA. Diet and the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease among U.S. Adults. Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA. Doctor of Philosophy, 2000.
PRESENTATIONS
Invited Presentations and Workshops
1. “A Big-Picture Snapshot of Pasta and its Partners on the Plate”. Invited presentation: Nutrition Science, Pasta Meals, and the Healthy Mediterranean Diet. Oldways Preservation Trust, Rome, Italy. February 16-18, 2004.
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 43 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 56 of 64 PageID #: 193
1/7/2020
2. “Health Effects of Fruits and Vegetables on Risk of CVD and Diabetes”. Invited presentation: Joint World Health Organization-Food and Agriculture Organization Workshop on Fruits and Vegetables, Kobe, Japan. June 23-25, 2004.
3. “Health Aspects of Vegetables and Fruits: Scientific Evidence for 5-a-day”. Invited presentation: 10th Annual Karlsruhe Nutrition Congress, Karlsruhe, Germany. October 15-17, 2006.
4. “Micronutrients in Cardiovascular Disease: Current Recommendations”. Invited presentation: 48th Annual Meeting of the American College of Nutrition, Orlando, FL. September 27-30, 2007.
5. “Epidemiological Evidence for the Effects of Fruits and Vegetables on Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes”. Seminar presented to faculty and staff of Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, May 9, 2007.
6. “Folic Acid Supplementation: A Tale of Two Studies” Invited presentation: Internal Medicine Grand Rounds, Tulane University Department of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, January 30th, 2008.
7. “Folic Acid Supplementation and Cardiovascular Disease: State of the Art Update.” Invited presentation: Southern Regional Meetings, New Orleans, LA, February 12-14, 2009.
8. “Folic Acid Supplementation in Cardiovascular Disease” Invited presentation: Cardiology Grand Rounds, Tulane University Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, New Orleans, LA, March 4, 2009.
9. “What’s New in the Art and Science of Teaching Evidence-based Medicine (EBM)?: A 2008 Update for Teachers of EBM”. Workshop presented at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine, Miami Beach, FL, May 15, 2009. CME Offered
10. “Folic Acid Intervention Studies”. Invited Presentation: Max-Rubner Institute Conference, Karlsruhe, Germany. October 11-13, 2009.
11. “Trials of Folic Acid Supplementation in Cardiovascular Disease”. Invited Presentation: China Heart Congress and International Heart Forum, Beijing, China. August 12-15, 2010.
12. “Low Carbohydrate Diet and Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors”. Seminar presented to faculty and staff of Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, May 24, 2012.
13. "Management of Cardiovascular Disease Risk Post-MI and in my Chest Pain (Rule Out) Patients". Invited Presentation: 13th Annual Southern Hospital Medicine Conference, Atlanta, GA. October 24-27, 2012.
14. “Management of Acute Hypertension in the Hospital” Invited Presentation: 14th Annual Southern Hospital Medicine Conference, New Orleans, LA. November 7-9th, 2013.
Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 44 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 57 of 64 PageID #: 194
1/7/2020
15. “Fat Is Not the Enemy: Why High Fat Diets May Be Good for Your Waistline and Your Heart” Invited Presentation: Distinguished Lecture Health Sciences Research Day, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, March 26th, 2015.
16. “Low Carbohydrate Diets, Weight Loss and Heart Health” Invited Presentation: Rutgers University Department of Nutrition. New Brunswick, NJ. April 16th, 2015.
17. “Overview of the Bogalusa Heart Study and Recent Results” Invited Presentation: University of Alabama Birmingham, Department of Epidemiology. Birmingham, AL. May 6th, 2015.
18. Moderator, American Heart Association Epidemiology Conference, Life-course Epidemiology Session, Thursday, March 22nd, 2018, New Orleans, LA.

CURRENT RESEARCH GRANT PARTICIPATION

Role: Project:
Period of Support: Funding Source: Funding Level: Principal Investigator: Objectives:

Site PI (Subcontract from Northwestern University at Chicago) PROmote weight loss in obese PAD patients to preVEnt mobility loss: the PROVE Trial 04/01/2019- 03/31/2024 NIH/NHLBI (UG3HL141729) $3,019,993 Mary McGrae McDermott, MD The proposed study will randomize 212 participants with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and BMI > 28 kg/m2 to one of two groups: weight loss + exercise (WL+EX) vs. exercise alone (EX). Participants will be randomized at three field centers: Northwestern University, University of Minnesota, and Tulane. Our primary outcome is change in six-minute walk distance at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes are change in six-minute walk distance at 6-month follow-up, walking exercise adherence, and change in physical activity, patient-reported walking ability (measured by the Walking Impairment Questionnaire), and quality of life (measured by the SF12 Physical Component Score).

Role:

Principal Investigator

Project:

Lifespan Cardiovascular Risk Exposures and Alzheimer-related

Brain Health: The Bogalusa Heart Study

Period of Support: 07/01/2019-06/30/2024

Funding Source:

NIH/NIA (2R01AG041200)

Funding Level:

$3,715,021.00

Principal Investigator: Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD (contact PI) MPI: Owen Carmichael, PhD

Objectives:

The proposed study will examine how cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF)

and cumulative exposure to CVRF across the life-course influence

Alzheimer-related indicators of brain health including performance on a

standardized neurocognitive battery, transcranial doppler ultrasound,

cerebral blood flow and oxygenation, 3T brain MRI and, in a subset,

amyloid PET scanning, among participants in the Bogalusa Heart Study.

Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 45 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 58 of 64 PageID #: 195 1/7/2020

Role:

Principal Investigator

Project:

Early Life Glycemic Status and Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging

Markers in Middle Age: The Bogalusa Heart Study

Period of Support: 12/01/2018-11/30/2023

Funding Source:

NIH/NIA (R01AG062309)

Funding Level:

$3,608,663

Principal Investigator: Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD (contact PI) MPI: Owen Carmichael, PhD

Objectives:

This project will use neuroimaging and cognitive testing to explore long-

term cognitive outcomes among Bogalusa Heart Study participants

associated with high-normal early-life mean fasting plasma glucose, as

well as Alzheimer’s Disease-related neurobiological substrates for these

outcomes in a subset of participants will also undergo 3T brain MRI and

amyloid PET.

Role:

Principal Investigator

Project:

A Novel Research Infrastructure Enabling Life-course Studies of

Healthy Aging

Period of Support: 08/15/2018-07/31/2023

Funding Source:

NIH/NIA R21/R33 Phased Innovation Award (R21AG057983)

Funding Level:

$2,743,499

Principal Investigator: Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD (contact PI) MPI: Elaine Urbina, Jessica Woo

Objectives:

The overall objective of this proposal is to develop and enhance a novel

research infrastructure that will advance the science of aging in the area of

early life and childhood protective factors that contribute to “successful”

aging. In the R21 phase, we will catalog and consolidate biorepositories

across three cohorts, and in the R33 phase, we will demonstrate the

feasibility of remote measurement methods.

Role:

Principal Investigator

Project:

The Role of Vascular Aging in Cognitive and Physical Function

Period of Support: 09/01/2012-11/30/2018 No Cost Extension

Funding Source:

NIA (R01AG041200)

Funding Level:

$ 2,399,927

Principal Investigator: Lydia A. Bazzano, MD, PhD

Objectives:

This project will examine the role of vascular aging, lifestyle and diet in

maintenance of cognitive and physical performance by recruiting 1,257

participants in the Bogalusa Heart Study who will undergo cognitive

function, physical function and cardiovascular risk factor examination at

baseline and again 2 years later at follow- up.

Role: Project:
Period of Support: Funding Source: Funding Level:

Principal Investigator A tRial of the idEal proteiN systEm versus loW fAt diet for weight Loss: RENEWAL 01/01/2018-12/31/2019 Ideal Protein of America, Inc. $432,125

Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 46 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 59 of 64 PageID #: 196 1/7/2020

Principal Investigator: Lydia A. Bazzano, MD, PhD

Objectives:

RENEWAL is a randomized controlled clinical trial examining the effects

of a restricted carbohydrate, optimal protein (Ideal Protein) diet as

compared to a guideline-based, low-fat, restricted calorie diet on changes

in body weight, composition, traditional and CVD risk factors.

Role:

Co-Investigator

Project:

Tulane Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's

Health (BIRCHW)

Period of Support: 09/26/2002-07/31/2023

Funding Source:

NIH/ K12HD043451

Funding Level:

$2,693,710

Principal Investigator: Marie Krousel-Wood, MD

Objectives:

The Tulane BIRCWH Program provides mentored career development for

junior faculty to increase the number of highly trained independent

investigators in sex/ gender differences and women's health in the field of

cardiovascular and related diseases.

Role:

Co-Investigator (Subcontract from Children’s Hospital Medical Center)

Project:

Childhood CV Risk and Adult CVD Outcomes: an International

Long-term Follow-up

Period of Support: 12/01/2014-11/30/2019

Funding Source:

NIH/NHLBI (R01HL121230)

Funding Level:

$10,561,912

Principal Investigator: Jessica Woo, PhD

Objectives:

This research is a multicenter study of international longitudinal cohort

studies (Bogalusa, Louisiana; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Muscatine, Iowa;

Cincinnati, Ohio; Princeton, Ohio; Australia and Finland). The study

leverages the existing collaborative structure to assess the relation of

childhood and adolescent cardiovascular risk factors to adult endpoints.

Role:

Co-Investigator

Project:

Tulane COBRE for Clinical and Translational Research in

Cardiometabolic Diseases

Period of Support: 03/10/2016-02/28/2021

Funding Source:

NIH/NIGM (P20GM109036)

Funding Level:

$13,330,930

Principal Investigator: Jiang He, MD, PhD

Objectives:

The overall objective of this COBRE application is to increase the quality

and quantity of clinical, translational and implementation research in

cardiometabolic diseases at Tulane University. Role:

Role: Project: Period of Support: Funding Source: Funding Level:

Site PI (Subcontract from Northwestern University at Chicago) Improve PAD Performance with Metformin: The PERMET Trial 03/01/2018-11/30/2019 NIH/NHLBI (R01HL131771) $2,974,184

Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 47 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 60 of 64 PageID #: 197 1/7/2020

Principal Investigator: Mary McGrae McDermott

Objectives:

The PERMET trial is a placebo controlled double-blind randomized

clinical trial to establish whether metformin (2,000 mgs daily) improves

and/or prevents decline in walking performance in people with peripheral

artery disease (PAD).

Role:

Site PI (Subcontract from Northwestern University at Chicago)

Project:

TELmisartan plus EXercise to improve functioning in PAD: The

TELEX Trial

Period of Support: 03/01/2018-04/30/2019

Funding Source:

NIH/NHLBI (R01HL126117)

Funding Level:

$2,933,532

Principal Investigator: Mary McGrae McDermott

Objectives:

TELEX is a randomized controlled clinical trial designed to establish

whether telmisartan improves walking performance in people with

peripheral artery disease (PAD). The TELEX trial will also determine

whether telmisartan plus supervised exercise improves walking

performance more than either therapy alone.

Role:

Co-investigator

Project:

The Roles of the Microbiome and Metabolome in Vascular Aging

Period of Support: 09/01/2016-05/31/2019 (NCE)

Funding Source:

NIH/NIA (R21AG051914)

Funding Level:

$263,375

Principal Investigator: Tanika Kelly, PhD

Objectives:

To identify gut bacterial communities and metabolites influencing

vascular

aging among 300 Bogalusa Heart Study participants. These findings may

also be used to advance clinical and public health practice through the

development of novel therapies for CVD and promotion of healthy aging.

PAST RESEARCH GRANT PARTICIPATION

Role:

Principal Investigator

Project:

Lifespan Cardiovascular Exposures and Risk of Brain Injury in the

Bogalusa Heart Study

Period of Support: 1/01/2017 – 12/31/2018

Funding Source:

Louisiana Clinical and Translational Science Center - Pilot Project

Funding Level:

$50,000

Principal Investigator: Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD

Objectives:

The goals of this project are to collect 3TMRI measures of brain health

from members of the Bogalusa Heart Study, and to assess relationships

between lifespan exposures to cardiovascular risk

Role:

Co-Investigator

Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 48 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 61 of 64 PageID #: 198 1/7/2020

Project:

Linking Health and Environmental Outcomes to Dietary Behaviours

in the United States

Period of Support: 10/01/2015-08/31/2017

Funding Source:

Wellcome Trust (106854/Z/15/Z)

Funding Level:

$624,997

Principal Investigator: Diego Rose, PhD

Objectives:

The project aims to improve our understanding of how dietary choices

influence health and environmental outcomes, and how such choices can

be modified through public policy.

Role:

Co-Investigator (Subcontract via Louisiana Public Health Institute)

Project:

PCORnet Bariatric Study

Period of Support: 10/01/2015-09/30/2017

Funding Source:

PCORI OBS150530683

Funding Level:

$4,568,390

Principal Investigator: David Arterburn, MD, MPH

Objectives:

The main goal of this comparative effectiveness research study is to

provide accurate estimates of the 1-, 3-, and 5-year benefits and risks of

the three main surgical treatment options for severe obesity.

Role:

Co-Investigator

Project:

Long-Term Burden of Maternal Cardiovascular Risk Factors and

Birth Outcomes

Period of Support: 08/05/2012-06/30/2017

Funding Source:

NIH/NICHD (R01HD069587)

Funding Level:

$1,538,429

Principal Investigator: Emily Harville, PhD

Objectives:

The overall objective with this project is to determine the relationship

between pre-pregnancy cardiovascular risk, from childhood through early

adulthood, and birth outcomes.

Role:

Co-Investigator

Project:

Childhood Secondhand Smoke and Longitudinal Cardiovascular Risk

Profile

Period of Support: 09/17/2012-06/30/2015

Funding Source:

NIEHS (R01ES021724)

Funding Level:

$1,203,299

Principal Investigator: Wei Chen, MD, PhD

Objectives:

The major goal is to study childhood secondhand smoke exposure and its

impact on cardiovascular disease risk from childhood to adulthood within

a black-white population using a longitudinal cohort.

Role: Project: Period of Support: Funding Source: Funding Level:

Subcontract, Co-Investigator South American Center of Excellence in Cardiovascular Health 06/08/2009-06/07/2014 NHLBI (HHSN268200900029C) $5,270,206

Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 49 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 62 of 64 PageID #: 199 1/7/2020

Principal Investigator: Adolpho Rubenstein, MD

Objectives:

The objective of the South American Center of Excellence in

Cardiovascular Health (SACECH) is to establish a cohort in the Southern

Cone of Latin America in order to (1) estimate the prevalence,

distribution, and secular trend of major CVD and risk factors in the

Southern Cone, (2) examine the association between traditional and novel

CVD risk factors and incidence, (3) assess the burden of CVD, and (4)

identify future interventions

Role:

Co-Investigator

Project:

Clinical Center for Prospective Cohort Study of CRI

Period of Support: 09/28/2001-04/30/2013

Funding Source:

NIDDK (U01DK060963)

Funding Level:

$4,402,718

Principal Investigator: Jiang He, MD, PhD

Objectives:

The major goals of this project are to examine risk factors for the

progression of renal disease and development of cardiovascular disease in

patients with chronic renal insufficiency.

Role:

Co-Investigator

Project:

Research Training in Gene-Environment Interaction in China

Period of support:

07/01/2012─06/30/2017

Funding source:

Fogarty International Center (D43 TW009107)

Funding level:

$1,343,470

Principal Investigator: Jiang He, MD, PhD

Objectives:

This joint training program of the Tulane University and Tropical

Medicine and the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking

Union Medical College, and the National Center for Cardiovascular

Diseases of China aimed to provide research training in gene-environment

interaction in chronic diseases across the lifespan in China.

Role:

Co-Investigator

Project:

Comprehensive Approach for Hypertension Prevention and Control

in Argentina

Period of support: 04/01/2012 –03/31/2017

Funding source:

NHLBI (1U01HL114197-01)

Funding level:

$2,218,017

Principal Investigator: Jiang He, MD, PhD

Objectives:

The overall objectives of the proposed cluster randomized trial are to test

whether a comprehensive intervention program within a national public

primary care system will improve hypertension prevention and control

among uninsured hypertensive patients and their families in Argentina.

Role: Project: Period of Support: Funding Source:

Principal Investigator Heritability and Genome-wide Linkage of Lipid Phenotypes 09/15/2008-06/30/2012 NHLBI (K08HL091108)

Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 50 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 63 of 64 PageID #: 200 1/7/2020

Funding Level:

$458,800

Principal Investigator: Lydia A. Bazzano, MD, PhD

Objectives:

The overall objectives of the proposed study are to investigate familial

correlations, heritability, and major gene effects for serum lipid and

lipoprotein phenotypes and investigate the role of quantitative trait loci by

conducting genome-wide linkage analyses using 407 microsatellite

markers.

Role:

Junior Faculty Investigator

Project:

Tulane COBRE in Hypertension and Renal Biology

Period of Support: 09/2007-08/2012

Funding Source:

NCRR (P20RR017659)

Funding Level:

$12 million

Principal Investigator: Louis Gabriel Navar, PhD

Objectives:

The objectives are to provide an enriched mentoring environment to junior

faculty investigators so that they can achieve independent status and

national competitiveness and to augment and strengthen biomedical

research capacity at Tulane University Health Sciences Center and the

State of Louisiana in hypertension and associated renal and cardiovascular

disease.

Role:

Co-Investigator

Project:

Sodium Sensitivity and Risk of Hypertension

Period of Support: 07/01/2007-07/31/2012

Funding Source:

NHLBI (R01HL087263)

Funding Level:

$2,834,971

Principal Investigator: Jiang He, MD, PhD

Objectives:

The major objectives are to examine the relationship between blood

pressure responses to dietary sodium and the risk of hypertension and to

examine the association between biological candidate genes and the risk of

hypertension.

Role:

Principal Investigator

Project:

Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Medication Adherence and Health

Care Facility Utilization among Veterans

Period of Support: 11/15/2006-11/15/2011

Funding Source:

Tulane University Research Enhancement Fund-Phase II

Funding Level:

$45,000

Principal Investigator: Lydia A. Bazzano, MD, PhD

Objectives:

This project evaluates adherence of hypertensive veterans to medication

regimens and use of health care facilities before and after Hurricane

Katrina

Role: Project: Period of Support: Funding Source:

Primary Care Physician Primary Care Access Stabilization Grant 09/2007-09/2010 Louisiana Public Health Institute

Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 51 of 52

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 2-20 Filed 04/14/20 Page 64 of 64 PageID #: 201 1/7/2020

Funding Level:

$1,962,232

Principal Investigator: L. Lee Hamm, MD

Objectives:

The objective of this project is to restore and expand access to primary

care in the greater New Orleans area in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and

its aftermath.

Role:

Co-Principal Investigator

Project:

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of NPH Insulin and Glargine

Insulin

Period of Support: 03/15/2007-06/15/2007

Funding Source:

Eli Lilly & Co.

Funding Level:

$22,452

Principal Investigator: Lydia A. Bazzano, MD, PhD and Lizheng Shi, PharmD, PhD

Objectives:

The major objective of this project is to perform meta-analysis to examine

treatment effects, hypoglycemia, glycosylated hemoglobin, weight gain

and doses between Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin and

glargine insulin among person with type II diabetes.

Role:

Junior Faculty Scholar

Project:

Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women’s Health

Period of Support: 07/01/2005-06/30/2007

Funding Source:

ODS/NICHD (K12HD43451)

Funding Level:

$449,993

Principal Investigator: Paul K. Whelton, MD, MSc.

Objectives:

This grant is designed to promote research and the transfer of research

findings to clinical care that will benefit the health of women.

Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD |Page 52 of 52

Declaration of Dr. Jaimie Meyer
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1746, I hereby declare as follows:
I. Background and Qualifications
1. I am Dr. Jaimie Meyer, an Assistant Professor of Medicine at Yale School of Medicine and Assistant Clinical Professor of Nursing at Yale School of Nursing in New Haven, Connecticut. I am board certified in Internal Medicine, Infectious Diseases and Addiction Medicine. I completed my residency in Internal Medicine at NY Presbyterian Hospital at Columbia, New York, in 2008. I completed a fellowship in clinical Infectious Diseases at Yale School of Medicine in 2011 and a fellowship in Interdisciplinary HIV Prevention at the Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS in 2012. I hold a Master of Science in Biostatistics and Epidemiology from Yale School of Public Health.
2. I have worked for over a decade on infectious diseases in the context of jails and prisons. From 2008-2016, I served as the Infectious Disease physician for York Correctional Institution in Niantic, Connecticut, which is the only state jail and prison for women in Connecticut. In that capacity, I was responsible for the management of HIV, Hepatitis C, tuberculosis, and other infectious diseases in the facility. Since then, I have maintained a dedicated HIV clinic in the community for patients returning home from prison and jail. For over a decade, I have been continuously funded by the NIH, industry, and foundations for clinical research on HIV prevention and treatment for people involved in the criminal justice system, including those incarcerated in closed settings (jails and prisons) and in the community under supervision (probation and parole). I have served as an expert consultant on infectious diseases and women’s health in jails and prisons for the UN Office on Drugs and Crimes, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and others. I also served as an expert health witness for the US Commission on Civil Rights Special Briefing on Women in Prison.
3. I have written and published extensively on the topics of infectious diseases among people involved in the criminal justice system including book chapters and articles in leading peer-reviewed journals (including Lancet HIV, JAMA Internal Medicine, American Journal of Public Health, International Journal of Drug Policy) on issues of prevention, diagnosis, and management of HIV, Hepatitis C, and other infectious diseases among people involved in the criminal justice system. In making the following statements, I am not commenting on the particular issues posed this case. Rather, I am making general statements about the realities of persons in detention facilities, jails and prisons.
4. My C.V. includes a full list of my honors, experience, and publications, and it is attached as Exhibit A.
5. I was paid $1,000 for my time drafting an earlier version of this report filed in another case. I subsequently prepared this version of the report without receiving payment for my services.
1

6. I have not testified as an expert at trial or by deposition in the past four years.
II. Heightened Risk of Epidemics in Jails and Prisons
7. The risk posed by infectious diseases in jails and prisons is significantly higher than in the community, both in terms of risk of transmission, exposure, and harm to individuals who become infected. There are several reasons this is the case, as delineated further below.
8. Globally, outbreaks of contagious diseases are all too common in closed detention settings and are more common than in the community at large. Prisons and jails are not isolated from communities. Staff, visitors, contractors, and vendors pass between communities and facilities and can bring infectious diseases into facilities. Moreover, rapid turnover of jail and prison populations means that people often cycle between facilities and communities. People often need to be transported to and from facilities to attend court and move between facilities. Prison health is public health.
9. Reduced prevention opportunities: Congregate settings such as jails and prisons allow for rapid spread of infectious diseases that are transmitted person to person, especially those passed by droplets through coughing and sneezing. When people must share dining halls, bathrooms, showers, and other common areas, the opportunities for transmission are greater. When infectious diseases are transmitted from person to person by droplets, the best initial strategy is to practice social distancing. When jailed or imprisoned, people have much less of an opportunity to protect themselves by social distancing than they would in the community. Spaces within jails and prisons are often also poorly ventilated, which promotes highly efficient spread of diseases through droplets. Placing someone in such a setting therefore dramatically reduces their ability to protect themselves from being exposed to and acquiring infectious diseases.
10. Disciplinary segregation or solitary confinement is not an effective disease containment strategy. Beyond the known detrimental mental health effects of solitary confinement, isolation of people who are ill in solitary confinement results in decreased medical attention and increased risk of death. Isolation of people who are ill using solitary confinement also is an ineffective way to prevent transmission of the virus through droplets to others because, except in specialized negative pressure rooms (rarely in medical units if available at all), air continues to flow outward from rooms to the rest of the facility. Risk of exposure is thus increased to other people in prison and staff.
11. Reduced prevention opportunities: During an infectious disease outbreak, people can protect themselves by washing hands. Jails and prisons do not provide adequate opportunities to exercise necessary hygiene measures, such as frequent handwashing or use of alcohol-based sanitizers when handwashing is unavailable. Jails and prisons are often under-resourced and ill-equipped with sufficient hand soap and alcohol-based sanitizers for people detained in and working in these settings. High-touch surfaces (doorknobs, light switches, etc.) should also be cleaned and disinfected regularly with bleach to prevent virus spread, but this is often not done in jails and prisons because of a
2

lack of cleaning supplies and lack of people available to perform necessary cleaning procedures.
12. Reduced prevention opportunities: During an infectious disease outbreak, a containment strategy requires people who are ill with symptoms to be isolated and that caregivers have access to personal protective equipment, including gloves, masks, gowns, and eye shields. Jails and prisons are often under-resourced and ill-equipped to provide sufficient personal protective equipment for people who are incarcerated and caregiving staff, increasing the risk for everyone in the facility of a widespread outbreak.
13. Increased susceptibility: People incarcerated in jails and prisons are more susceptible to acquiring and experiencing complications from infectious diseases than the population in the community.1 This is because people in jails and prisons are more likely than people in the community to have chronic underlying health conditions, including diabetes, heart disease, chronic lung disease, chronic liver disease, and lower immune systems from HIV.
14. Jails and prisons are often poorly equipped to diagnose and manage infectious disease outbreaks. Some jails and prisons lack onsite medical facilities or 24-hour medical care. The medical facilities at jails and prisons are almost never sufficiently equipped to handle large outbreaks of infectious diseases. To prevent transmission of droplet-borne infectious diseases, people who are infected and ill need to be isolated in specialized airborne negative pressure rooms. Most jails and prisons have few negative pressure rooms if any, and these may be already in use by people with other conditions (including tuberculosis or influenza). Resources will become exhausted rapidly and any beds available will soon be at capacity. This makes both containing the illness and caring for those who have become infected much more difficult.
15. Jails and prisons lack access to vital community resources to diagnose and manage infectious diseases. Jails and prisons do not have access to community health resources that can be crucial in identifying and managing widespread outbreaks of infectious diseases. This includes access to testing equipment, laboratories, and medications.
16. Jails and prisons often need to rely on outside facilities (hospitals, emergency departments) to provide intensive medical care given that the level of care they can provide in the facility itself is typically relatively limited. During an epidemic, this will not be possible, as those outside facilities will likely be at or over capacity themselves.
17. Health safety: As an outbreak spreads through jails, prisons, and communities, medical personnel become sick and do not show up to work. Absenteeism means that facilities can become dangerously understaffed with healthcare providers. This increases a number of risks and can dramatically reduce the level of care provided. As health systems inside facilities are taxed, people with chronic underlying physical and mental health conditions and serious medical needs may not be able to receive the care they need for these
1 Active case finding for communicable diseases in prisons, 391 The Lancet 2186 (2018), https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31251-0/fulltext.
3

conditions. As supply chains become disrupted during a global pandemic, the availability of medicines and food may be limited.
18. Safety and security: As an outbreak spreads through jails, prisons, and communities, correctional officers and other security personnel become sick and do not show up to work. Absenteeism poses substantial safety and security risk to both the people inside the facilities and the public.
19. These risks have all been borne out during past epidemics of influenza in jails and prisons. For example, in 2012, the CDC reported an outbreak of influenza in 2 facilities in Maine, resulting in two inmate deaths.2 Subsequent CDC investigation of 995 inmates and 235 staff members across the 2 facilities discovered insufficient supplies of influenza vaccine and antiviral drugs for treatment of people who were ill and prophylaxis for people who were exposed. During the H1N1-strain flu outbreak in 2009 (known as the “swine flu”), jails and prisons experienced a disproportionately high number of cases.3 Even facilities on “quarantine” continued to accept new intakes, rendering the quarantine incomplete. These scenarios occurred in the “best case” of influenza, a viral infection for which there was an effective and available vaccine and antiviral medications, unlike COVID-19, for which there is currently neither.
III. Profile of COVID-19 as an Infectious Disease4
20. The novel coronavirus, officially known as SARS-CoV-2, causes a disease known as COVID-19. The virus is thought to pass from person to person primarily through respiratory droplets (by coughing or sneezing) but may also survive on inanimate surfaces. People seem to be most able to transmit the virus to others when they are sickest but it is possible that people can transmit the virus before they start to show symptoms or for weeks after their symptoms resolve. In China, where COVID-19 originated, the average infected person passed the virus on to 2-3 other people; transmission occurred at a distance of 3-6 feet. Not only is the virus very efficient at being transmitted through droplets, everyone is at risk of infection because our immune systems have never been exposed to or developed protective responses against this virus. A vaccine is currently in development but will likely not be able for another year to the
2 Influenza Outbreaks at Two Correctional Facilities — Maine, March 2011, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2012), https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6113a3.htm. 3 David M. Reutter, Swine Flu Widespread in Prisons and Jails, but Deaths are Few, Prison Legal News (Feb. 15, 2010), https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2010/feb/15/swine-fluwidespread-in-prisons-and-jails-but-deaths-are-few/. 4 This whole section draws from Brooks J. Global Epidemiology and Prevention of COVID19, COVID-19 Symposium, Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), virtual (March 10, 2020); Coronavirus (COVID-19), Centers for Disease Control, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html; Brent Gibson, COVID-19 (Coronavirus): What You Need to Know in Corrections, National Commission on Correctional Health Care (February 28, 2020), https://www.ncchc.org/blog/covid-19-coronavirus-what-youneed-to-know-in-corrections.
4

general public. Antiviral medications are currently in testing but not yet FDA-approved, so only available for compassionate use from the manufacturer. People in prison and jail will likely have even less access to these novel health strategies as they become available.
21. Most people (80%) who become infected with COVID-19 will develop a mild upper respiratory infection but emerging data from China suggests serious illness occurs in up to 16% of cases, including death.5 Serious illness and death is most common among people with underlying chronic health conditions, like heart disease, lung disease, liver disease, and diabetes, and older age.6 Death in COVID-19 infection is usually due to pneumonia and sepsis. The emergence of COVID-19 during influenza season means that people are also at risk from serious illness and death due to influenza, especially when they have not received the influenza vaccine or the pneumonia vaccine.
22. The care of people who are infected with COVID-19 depends on how seriously they are ill.7 People with mild symptoms may not require hospitalization but may continue to be closely monitored at home. People with moderate symptoms may require hospitalization for supportive care, including intravenous fluids and supplemental oxygen. People with severe symptoms may require ventilation and intravenous antibiotics. Public health officials anticipate that hospital settings will likely be overwhelmed and beyond capacity to provide this type of intensive care as COVID-19 becomes more widespread in communities.
23. COVID-19 prevention strategies include containment and mitigation. Containment requires intensive hand washing practices, decontamination and aggressive cleaning of surfaces, and identifying and isolating people who are ill or who have had contact with people who are ill, including the use of personal protective equipment. Jails and prisons are totally under-resourced to meet the demand for any of these strategies. As infectious diseases spread in the community, public health demands mitigation strategies, which involves social distancing and closing other communal spaces (schools, workplaces, etc.) to protect those most vulnerable to disease. Jails and prisons are unable to adequately provide social distancing or meet mitigation recommendations as described above.
24. The time to act is now. Data from other settings demonstrate what happens when jails and prisons are unprepared for COVID-19. News outlets reported that Iran temporarily
5 Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Situation Summary, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (March 14, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/summary.html. 6 Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. The Lancet (published online March 11, 2020), https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30566-3/fulltext 7 Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (March 7, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidancemanagement-patients.html.
5

released 70,000 prisoners when COVID-19 started to sweep its facilities.8 To date, few state or federal prison systems have adequate (or any) pandemic preparedness plans in place.9 Systems are challenged to respond to COVID-19 guidelines that are modified on a near-daily basis. It may be impossible to adequately respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, while also respecting the rights and dignity of people who are incarcerated.
IV. Possible Risks of COVID-19 in ICE Detention Facilities
25. Based on my experience working on public health in jails and prisons, I can make the following general statements about how the COVID-19 outbreak will interact with and exacerbate conditions that may exist in some detention centers.
26. Any delays in access to care that already exist in normal circumstances will only become worse during an outbreak, making it especially difficult for the facilities to contain any infections and to treat those who are infected.
27. Failure to provide individuals with continuation of the treatment they were receiving in the community, or even just interruption of treatment, for chronic underlying health conditions will result in increased risk of morbidity and mortality related to these chronic conditions.
28. Failure to provide individuals adequate medical care for their underlying chronic health conditions results in increased risk of COVID-19 infection and increased risk of infection-related morbidity and mortality if they do become infected.
29. People with underlying chronic mental health conditions need adequate access to treatment for these conditions throughout their period of detention. Failure to provide adequate mental health care, as may happen when health systems in jails and prisons are taxed by COVID-19 outbreaks, may result in poor health outcomes. Moreover, mental health conditions may be exacerbated by the stress of incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic, including isolation and lack of visitation.
30. Failure to keep accurate and sufficient medical records will make it more difficult for facilities to identify vulnerable individuals in order to both monitor their health and protect them from infection. Inadequate screening and testing procedures in facilities increase the widespread COVID-19 transmission.
31. Language barriers will similarly prevent the effective identification of individuals who are particularly vulnerable or may have symptoms of COVID-19. Similarly, the failure to
8 Iran temporarily releases 70,000 prisoners as coronavirus cases surge, Reuters (March 9, 2020), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-iran/iran-temporarily-releases70000-prisoners-as-coronavirus-cases-surge-idUSKBN20W1E5. 9 Luke Barr & Christina Carrega, State prisons prepare for coronavirus but federal prisons not providing significant guidance, sources say, ABC News (March 11, 2020), https://abcnews.go.com/US/state-prisons-prepare-coronavirus-federal-prisons-providingsignificant/story?id=69433690.
6

provide necessary aids to individuals who have auditory or visual disabilities could also limit the ability to identify and monitor symptoms of COVID-19.
32. Facilities with a track record of neglecting individuals with acute pain and serious health needs under ordinary circumstances are more likely to be ill-equipped to identify, monitor, and treat a COVID-19 epidemic.
33. Similarly, facilities with a track record of failing to adequately manage single individuals in need of emergency care are more likely to be seriously ill-equipped and underprepared when a number of people will need urgent care simultaneously, as would occur during a COVID-19 epidemic.
34. For individuals in facilities that have experienced these problems in the past, the experience of an epidemic and the lack of care while effectively trapped can itself be traumatizing, compounding the trauma of incarceration.
V. Conclusion and Recommendations
35. Reducing the size of the population in jails and prisons can be crucially important to reducing the level of risk both for those within those facilities and for the community at large. As such, from a public health perspective, it is my recommendation that individuals who can safely and appropriately remain in the community not be placed in ICE detention facilities at this time. I also recommend that individuals who are already in these facilities should be evaluated for release.
36. This is more important still for individuals with preexisting conditions (e.g., heart disease, chronic lung disease, chronic liver disease, suppressed immune system, diabetes) or who are over the age of 65.
37. Health in jails and prisons is community health. Protecting the health of individuals who are detained in and work in these facilities is vital to protecting the health of the wider community.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

March 2_3_, 2020 New Haven, Connecticut

_______________________ Dr. Jaimie Meyer

7

CURRICULUM VITAE

Name:

Jaimie P. Meyer, M.D., M.S.

Education:

B.A. M.D. M.S.

Dartmouth College (Anthropology) 2000 University of Connecticut 2005 Yale School of Public Health (Biostatistics and Epidemiology) 2014

Career/Academic Appointments:

2005-08

Intern and Resident, Internal Medicine, NY Columbia Presbyterian

Hospital, New York, NY

2008-11

Clinical and Research Fellow, Infectious Diseases, Yale University, New

Haven, CT

2010-12

Postdoctoral Fellow, Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS, Yale

School of Public Health, New Haven, CT

2012-14

Instructor, Infectious Diseases (AIDS Program), Yale School of Medicine,

New Haven, CT

2014-present Assistant Professor, Infectious Diseases (AIDS Program), Yale School of

Medicine, New Haven, CT

2015-present Clinical Assistant Professor, Division of Primary Care/Health Systems in

Nursing, Yale School of Nursing, New Haven, CT

Clinical Positions Held & Other Employment:

1999 2000-01
2010-12
2009-15 Niantic, CT 20152018-

Spanish Medical Interpreter, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA Research Assistant, UCSF Immunogenetics and Transplantation Laboratory, San Francisco, CA Infectious Diseases Attending (per diem), Hospital of Saint Raphael, New Haven, CT Infectious Diseases Clinician, York Women’s Correctional Institution,
HIV Clinician, Nathan Smith Clinic, New Haven, CT Faculty, Contemporary Management of HIV, Clinical Care Options

Board and other Certifications:

American Board of Internal Medicine, Internal Medicine, 2008, 2018 American Board of Internal Medicine, Infectious Diseases, 2010 American Board of Preventive Medicine, Addiction Medicine, 2018 DATA 2000 DEA X waiver to prescribe Buprenorphine, 2010 REMS Certified implanter and prescriber for Probuphine, 2016

Professional Honors & Recognition

A) International/National/Regional 2018 Selected as Early Career Reviewer, NIH Center for Scientific Review 2017 Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Scholar

1

2016 Fellow, American College of Physicians 2016 NIH Health Disparities Loan Repayment Award Competitive Renewal 2016 Selected for AAMC Early Career Women Faculty Professional Development Seminar 2014 NIH Health Disparities Loan Repayment Program Award 2014 NIDA Women & Sex/Gender Differences Junior Investigator Travel Award 2014 International Women's/Children's Health & Gender Working Group Travel Award 2014 Patterson Trust Awards Program in Clinical Research 2013 Thornton Award for Clinical Research 2011 Bristol Myers-Squibb Virology Fellows Award 2006 John N. Loeb Intern Award 2005 Connecticut State Medical Society Award 2005 American Medical Women’s Association Citation 2000 Hannah Croasdale Senior Award, Dartmouth College 1998 Palaeopitus Senior Leadership Society Inductee, Dartmouth College

B) University 2014 Fellow, Women’s Faculty Forum Public Voices Thought Leadership Program

PROFESSIONAL SERVICE

Journal Service: Reviewer 2012-present (In alphabetical order): Addiction Sci and Clin Pract, Addictive Behav Reports, AIDS Care, AIMS Public Health, American Journal on Addictions, American Journal of Epidemiology, American Journal of Public Health, Annals Internal Medicine, BMC Emergency Medicine, BMC Infectious Diseases, BMC Public Health, BMC Women’s Health, Clinical Infectious Diseases, Critical Public Health, Drug and Alcohol Dependence, Drug and Alcohol Review, Epidemiologic Reviews, Eurosurveillance, Health and Justice (Springer Open), International Journal of Drug Policy, International Journal of Prisoner Health, International Journal of STDs and AIDS, International Journal of Women’s Health, JAIDS, JAMA Internal Medicine, Journal of Family Violence, Journal of General Internal Medicine, Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, Journal of International AIDS Society, Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, Journal of Urban Health, Journal of Women’s Health, Open Forum Infectious Diseases, PLoS ONE, Public Health Reports, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Research Growth Initiative, Social Science and Medicine, SpringerPlus, Substance Abuse Treatment Prevention and Policy, Women’s Health Issues, Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine

2019-present Section Editor: Sex and Gender Issues, Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (JIAPAC)

Grant Service:

Reviewer:

2020

Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Physician Scientist Fellowship Award

2019

NIH RFA-DA-19-025 HEAL Initiative: Justice Community Opioid

Innovation Network (JCOIN) Clinical Research Centers

Professional Service for Professional Organizations

2016-present Fellow, American College of Physicians

2

2016-present Member, AAMC Group on Women in Medicine and Science (GWIMS) 2013-2016 Member, American College of Physicians 2013-present Member, InWomen’s Network, NIDA International Program 2011-present Member, American Medical Women’s Association 2011-present Member, Connecticut Infectious Disease Society 2009-present Member, American Society of Addiction Medicine 2008-present Member, Infectious Disease Society of America 2005-present Member, American Medical Association 2005-2008 Member, New York State Medical Society

Yale University Service

2019-present Core Faculty, Program in Addiction Medicine 2017-present Affiliated Faculty, Arthur Liman Center for Public Interest Law, Yale Law
School 2016-present Leadership Council, Women’s Faculty Forum, Yale University 2015-2016 Steering Committee, US Health and Justice Course, Yale School of
Medicine 2014-present Yale Internal Medicine Traditional Residency Intern Selection Committee 2013-present Women in Medicine at Yale Mentoring Program 2013-present Women in Science at Yale Mentoring Program 2012-present Affiliated Scientist, Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS 2009-2011 Preclinical Clerkship Tutor, Yale School of Medicine

Individual Mentorship

2020

Zoe Sernyak, Yale University: Summer internship

2020

Caroline Wortman, Cornell University: Summer internship

2020

Chevaughn Wellington, Quinnipiac School of Medicine: Capstone Project

Advisor

2019

Callie Ginapp, Yale School of Medicine: Research Mentor

2019

Alissa Haas, Yale School of Public Health (EMD): Research mentor

2019

Emily Bail, Yale School of Nursing: APRN Clinical mentor

2018

Camila Odio, Yale Internal Medicine Residency Program: Research

mentor

2018

Zoe Adams, Yale School of Medicine: Research mentor

2018

Yilu Qin, Yale Primary Care Residency Program, HIV Training Track:

Research mentor

2018

Kaitlin Erickson, Yale School of Nursing: APRN Clinical mentor

2017-2019 Emily Hoff, Yale School of Medicine: Research mentor, Thesis mentor

2017

Lindsay Eysenbach, Yale School of Medicine: Research mentor, Summer

project on Syringe Service Program

2017

Megan Carroll, Yale School of Public Health: M.S. Thesis advisor

(Biostatistics)

2016-2020 Britton Gibson, Yale School of Public Health and Quinnipiac School of

Medicine: Research mentor

2016

Ronnye Rutledge, Yale School of Medicine: MHS Thesis advisor;

awarded IDSA Education and Research Foundation 2015 Medical

Scholarship and Yale School of Medicine Medical Student Research

Fellowship; earned School and Departmental Honors for Thesis

2015

Kelsey Loeliger, Yale Schools of Medicine and Public Health: M.D./Ph.D.

Dissertation committee

3

2014
2014
2014 2014 2014 2014

Javier Cepeda, Yale School of Public Health: Ph.D. Research advisor/mentor Audrey Fritzinger, Yale PA Program: Thesis advisor; Received Honors for thesis Cecilia Dumouchel, Yale College: Summer internship Joan Chi-How, Yale School of Medicine: Internship Michelle Fikrig, Oberlin College: Summer internship Madison Breuer, Southern Connecticut State University: Internship

Public Service

2020
2020
2020
2019 2019 2018
2017 2017 2016 2002 1999 1998

Expert Consultant on COVID-19 Preparedness in Vermont Department of Corrections: Vermont Office of the Defender General, Prisoner Rights’ Office Expert Consultant on COVID-19 in Jails and Prisons: New York ACLU and Bronx Defenders, Onosamba-Ohindo, et al. v. Barr et al., Case No. 20-cv-0290 (W.D.N.Y.). Expert Consultant on COVID-19 in Jails and Prisons: New York ACLU and Bronx Defenders, Velesaca v. Wolf et al., Case No. 20-cv-1803 (S.D.N.Y.). Consultant on Medication Assisted Treatment in Prisons, Vermont Department of Corrections, Addiction Health Services Expert Witness for Women in Prison Briefing, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Consultant for SAMHSA State Targeted Response-Technical Assistance Consortium to address the opioid crisis, American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry Consultant on HIV Care in Prisons, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Scientific Advisory Board, HIV Prevention and Treatment in Cis-Gendered Women, Gilead Sciences, Inc. Consultant on Women’s Health, Female Offenders Unit, Federal Bureau of Prisons “Medicine as a Profession” Fellow, Soros Open Society Institute Volunteer Spanish Medical Interpreter, Boston Children’s Hospital Honorary Service Fellow, Costa Rican Humanitarian Foundation

Research Support Ongoing Research Support ACTIVE Investigator Sponsored Award (M161462) PI: Meyer 7/1/2017-6/30/2020 1.8 calendar Gilead Sciences, Inc. $81,151 (FY1 Directs) Delivering HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis to Networks of Justice-Involved Women Description: To leverage risk networks of CJ-involved women as a means of delivering PrEP and to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of strategically delivering PrEP to network members.

Clinical Scientist Development Award

PI: Meyer 7/1/17-6/30/20 3.0

calendar

Doris Duke Clinical Foundation

$149,959 (FY1 Directs)

4

Developing and Testing the Effect of a Patient-Centered HIV Prevention Decision Aid on PrEP uptake for Women with Substance Use in Treatment Settings Description: 1) To adapt a patient-centered HIV prevention decision aid to women with substance use entering treatment for substance use disorders. 2) Building on findings from Aim 1, to pilot test the effect of the adapted decision-aid intervention on PrEP uptake among women with substance use entering treatment for substance use disorders.

1 R21 DA042702-01A1

PI: Meyer 8/1/2017–7/31/2020 (NCE) 1.20 calendar

NIH/NIDA $129,673 (FY1 Directs)

Prisons, Drug Injection and the HIV Risk Environment in Kyrgyzstan

Description: We propose to generate qualitative data from interviews with prisoners and

prison staff and triangulate it with quantitative data from MATLINK within an analytical

HIV risk environment framework which aims to: 1. Describe the individual-environment

interactions that shape within-prison drug-related HIV risk practices and health

expectations post-release; and 2. Measure how within-prison risk and other factors

within the prison environment mediate engagement with OAT both within prison and

after release.

H79 TI080561

PI: Meyer 11/30/2018–11/29/2023 1.20 calendar

SAMHSA $389,054 (FY1 Directs)

CHANGE: Comprehensive Housing and Addiction Management Network for Greater

New Haven

We will expand and enhance the local implementation of a community infrastructure that

integrates housing, behavioral health, and addiction treatment services for highly

vulnerable populations at-risk for or living with HIV (PARLWH), by virtue of their

involvement in criminal justice (CJ) systems and/or engagement in sex work. The target

population for CHANGE is CJ-involved PARLWH in New Haven, Connecticut who

experience co-occurring homelessness, psychiatric, and substance use disorders.

Pilot Project Award mPI: Willie, Meyer 10/01/19-09/30/20 0.24 calendar

Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS (CIRA)

$29,993

Optimizing PrEP’s Potential in Non-Clinical Settings: Development and Evaluation of a

PrEP Decision Aid for Women Seeking Domestic Violence Services

This Type II hybrid effectiveness-implementation study seeks to adapt an existing PrEP

decision aid to intimate partner violence (IPV)-exposed women seeking domestic

violence services at two major Connecticut service agencies. This study will: provide

support for a PrEP decision aid that addresses the HIV prevention needs of IPV-

exposed women; use implementation science to increase PrEP uptake; include DV

agencies in intervention development and implementation; and improve understanding

of PrEP scale-up by addressing implementation factors in the community settings that

serve IPV-exposed women.

R01 MH121991 mPI: Meyer, Sullivan 01/01/2020-11/30/2024 1.8 calendar NIMH $374,816 (FY1 Directs) Identifying Modifiable Risk and Protective Processes at the Day-Level that Predict HIV Care Outcomes among Women Exposed to Partner Violence The main purpose of this study is to understand how exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV) affects women’s abilities to self-manage their HIV on a daily basis (i.e., adhere to antiretroviral medication), engage in longitudinal HIV care, and achieve and

5

sustain viral suppression. The project aims to build awareness of the IPV-health association and inform strategies/resources to promote resilience.

UNDER REVIEW:

R01 MH124533

PI: Meyer 07/01/2020-06/30/2025

3.6 calendar

NIMH $577,894 (FY1 Directs)

TelePrEP+ for Women in Criminal Justice Systems

This study is designed to test an active facilitation strategy (ePrEP) for scaling up PrEP,

an evidence-based practice, in two distinct settings (Connecticut and Alabama) for a key

population of women involved in criminal justice systems. We will randomize justice-

involved, PrEP-eligible women across two sites (CT and AL) to receive ePrEP or

standard of care. Using a Type I Hybrid Efficacy-Implementation framework, we will

evaluate individual-level (PrEP initiation and 6-month retention) and organizational-level

outcomes important for ePrEP scalability and sustainability across diverse contexts.

Inmate Health Services 2019 (Clinical Services Contract) PI: Meyer

10/01/2019-09/30/2022

0.96

Connecticut Department of Corrections $436,899

Yale Center of Excellence in Prison Health

We will create a Yale Center of Excellence in Prison Health that will provide specialty

e-consultation, staff development, and quality assurance programs for the CT

Department of Correction (DOC) in the areas of Behavioral Health, Transitional care,

and Infectious Diseases, which are the largest cost centers for DOC healthcare. We

will additionally provide outpatient specialty telehealth services in key areas,

including: Cardiology, Endocrinology, and Rheumatology. We focus on regional

healthcare delivery (RFPs 2 and 4), acknowledging that the majority of people in

these facilities will return home to the greater New Haven area, enabling continuity of

care and serving as a regional hub.

Inmate Health Services 2019 (Clinical Services Contract) PI: Meyer

10/01/2019-09/30/2022

0.96

Connecticut Department of Corrections $250,805

Yale HIV in Jails Program

The current proposal seeks to reinvigorate and improve upon the HIV in Prisons

Program to deliver high quality, cost-effective HIV care and Infectious Disease

consultations to PWH in each of Connecticut’s jails (Hartford CC in RFP Region 1;

New Haven CC in RFP Region 2; Bridgeport CC in RFP Region 3; Corrigan

Radgowski CC and York CI in RFP Region 4).

Completed Research Support

K23 DA033858

PI: Meyer 7/1/2012 – 11/30/2017

9.0 calendar

NIH/NIDA $153,529 (FY1 Directs)

Evaluating and Improving HIV Outcomes in Community-based Women who Interface

with the Criminal Justice System

The major goal of this project is to inform, adapt and test an intervention that will improve

HIV treatment outcomes for community-based women who interface with the criminal

justice system, either after release from jail or during community supervision.

Patterson Trust Awards Program in Clinical Research 10/30/15

PI: Meyer

1/31/14-

6

Disentangling the Effect of Gender on HIV Treatment and Criminal Justice Outcomes

Bristol Myers-Squibb HIV Virology Fellowship Award 6/30/13

PI: Meyer

9/1/11-

NIMH T32 MH020031

PI: Ickovics

7/2/10-6/30/12

Interdisciplinary HIV Prevention Training Program, Yale University School of

Epidemiology and Public Health, Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS

Role: Research Scientist

NIAID T32 AI007517

PI: Quagliarello

6/30/09-7/1/10

Training in Investigative Infectious Disease, Yale University School of Medicine, Section

of Infectious Disease

Role: Research Scientist

Publications Peer-Reviewed Journals Azar M, Springer S, Meyer J, Altice F. A Systematic Review of the Impact of Alcohol Use Disorders on HIV Treatment Outcomes, Adherence to Antiretroviral Therapy and Health Care Utilization. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2010, 112: 178–193. PMID 20705402. PMCID: PMC2997193
Meyer J, Springer S, Altice F. Substance Abuse, Violence, and HIV in Women: A Literature Review of the SAVA Syndemic. Journal of Women’s Health 2011, 20(7). PMID 21668380. PMCID: PMC3130513
Chen N, Meyer J, Springer S. Advances in the Prevention of Heterosexual Transmission of HIV/AIDS among Women in the United States. Infectious Disease Reports, Special Issue: Women and Infectious Diseases 2011; 3: e6. doi: 10.4081/idr.2011.e6. PMID: 23745166. PMCID: PMC3671603
Meyer J, Chen N, Springer S. HIV Treatment in the Criminal Justice System: Critical Knowledge and Intervention Gaps. AIDS Research and Treatment 2011; 2011:680617. PMID 21776379. PMCID: PMC3137962
Springer S, Spaulding A, Meyer J, Altice F. Public Health Implications for Adequate Transitional Care for HIV-Infected Prisoners: Five Essential Components. Clinical Infectious Disease 2011; 53(5): 469-479. PMID 21844030 PMCID: PMC3156144.
Chen N, Meyer J, Bollinger R, Page K. HIV Testing and Prevention Behaviors among Latinos in Baltimore City. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health. 2012 Jan 20 (Epub). PMID: 22262410. PMCID: PMC3389229
Meyer J, Qiu J, Chen N, Larkin G, Altice F. Emergency Department Use by Released Prisoners with HIV: An Observational Longitudinal Study. PLoS ONE 2012; 7(8): e42416. PMID: 22879972 PMCID: 3411742
Meyer J, Qiu J, Chen N, Larkin G, Altice F. Frequent Emergency Department Use among Released Prisoners with HIV: Characterization Including a Novel Multimorbidity
7

Index. Academic Emergency Medicine 13 JAN 2013; 20(1):79-88. PMID: 23570481 PMCID: 3623800.
Meyer J, Wickersham J, Fu J, Brown S, Sullivan T, Springer S, Altice F. Partner Violence and Health among HIV-Infected Jail Detainees. International Journal of Prisoner Health 2013; 9(3): 124-141. DOI: 10.1108/IJPH-03-2013-0011. PMID: 24376468 PMCID: PMC3873166.
Althoff A, Zelenev A, Meyer J, Fu J, Brown S, Vagenas P, Avery A, Cruzado J, Spaulding A, Altice F. Correlates of Retention in HIV Care after Release from Jail: Results from a Multi-site Study. AIDS and Behavior 2013 Oct;17 Suppl 2:156-70. PMID: 23161210. PMCID: 3714328.
Chen N, Meyer J, Avery A, Draine J, Flanigan T, Lincoln T, Spaulding A, Springer S, Altice F. Adherence to HIV Treatment and Care among Previously Homeless Jail Detainees. AIDS Behav. 2013 Oct;17(8):2654-66. doi: 10.1007/s10461-011-0080-2. PMID: 22065234. PMCID: PMC3325326
Williams C, Kim S, Meyer J, Spaulding A, Teixeira P, Avery A, Moore K, Altice F, Simon D, Wickersham J, Murphy-Swallow D, Ouellet L. Gender Differences in Baseline Health, Needs at Release, and Predictors of Care Engagement among HIV-positive Clients Leaving Jail. AIDS and Behavior 2013 Oct;17 Suppl 2:195-202 PMID: 23314801 PMCID: PMC3758427
Chitsaz E, Meyer JP, Krishnan A, Springer SA, Marcus R, Zaller N, Jordan AO, Lincoln T, Flanigan TP, Porterfield J, Altice FL. Contribution of Substance Use Disorders on HIV Treatment Outcomes and Antiretroviral Medication Adherence Among HIV-infected Persons Entering Jail. AIDS and Behavior 2013 Oct;17 Suppl 2:118-27. doi: 10.1007/s10461-013-0506-0 PMID: 23673792. PMCID: PMC3818019
Meyer J, Althoff A, Altice F. Optimizing Care for HIV-infected People who Use Drugs: Evidence-Based Strategies for Overcoming Healthcare Disparities. Clinical Infectious Disease 2013 Nov; 57(9):1309-17. Epub 2013 Jun 23. DOI: 10.1093/cid/cit427. PMID: 23797288. PMCID: PMC3792721
Meyer J, Zelenev A, Wickersham J, Williams C, Teixiera P, Altice F. Gender Disparities in HIV Treatment Outcomes Following Release From Jail: Results From a Multicenter Study. American Journal of Public Health. 2014 Mar; 104(3): 343-41. NIHMS: 581757. PMID: 24432878. PMC3953795.
Meyer J, Cepeda J, Wu J, Trestman R, Altice F, Springer S. Optimization of HIV Treatment during Incarceration: Viral Suppression at the Prison Gate. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2014 May;174(5):721-9. PMID: 24687044 PMCID: PMC4074594
Meyer J. Capsule Commentary on Pyra et al. Sexual Minority Status and Violence among HIV Infected and At-Risk Women. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2014 May 3 [Epub ahead of print]. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-014-2857-2. PMID: 24793727.
8

Boyd A, Song D, Meyer J, Altice F. Emergency Department Use among HIV-Infected Released Jail Detainees. J Urban Health. 2014 Oct 21. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 25331820. PMC4338130
Meyer J, Cepeda J, Springer S, Wu J, Trestman R, Altice F. HIV in people reincarcerated in Connecticut prisons and jails: an observational cohort study. The Lancet HIV 1(2): e77 - e84, November 2014, Early Online Publication, 10 October 2014. doi:10.1016/S2352-3018(14)70022-0. NIHMS ID: 636511. PMID: 25473651 PMCID: PMC4249702
How J, Azar M, Meyer J. Are Nectarines to Blame? A Case Report and Literature Review of Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis Due to Listeria monocytogenes. Connecticut Medicine January 2015 79(1): 31-36. NIHMSID #65446; PMCID: PMC4423821.
Meyer, J. P., Moghimi, Y., Marcus, R., Lim, J. K., Litwin, A.H., and Altice, F. L. Evidence-Based Interventions to Enhance Assessment, Treatment, and Adherence in the Chronic Hepatitis C Care Continuum. Int J Drug Policy. 2015 May 17. pii: S09553959(15)00135-8. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.05.002 NIHMS692116. PMID:26077144
Meyer J, Cepeda J, Taxman F, Altice F. Sex-Related Disparities in Criminal Justice and HIV Treatment Outcomes: A Retrospective Cohort Study of HIV-infected Inmates. American Journal of Public Health: 2015 Sep;105(9):1901-10. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302687. Epub 2015 Jul 16. NIHMS677862. PMID: 26180958. PMC4529767
Meyer J, Womack J, Gibson B. Beyond the Pap Smear: Gender-Responsive HIV Care for Women. Yale J Biol Med (Focus Issue: Sex and Gender Health). 2016 Jun; 89(2): 193–203. PMCID: PMC4918880
Bernardo R, Streiter S, Tiberio P, Rodwin B, Mohareb A, Ogbuagu O, Emu B, Meyer J. Photo Quiz: A Peripheral Blood Smear in a Ugandan Refugee. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2017 December 55(12): 3313-3314.
Peasant C, Sullivan T, Weiss N, Martinez I, Meyer J. Beyond the Syndemic: Condom Negotiation and Use among Women Experiencing Partner Violence. AIDS Care. 2016 Sep 2:1-8. PMID: 27590004. PMCID: PMC5291821.
Peasant C, Montanero E, Kershaw T, Parra G, Weiss N, Meyer J, Murphy J, Ritchwood T, Sullivan T. An Event-Level Examination of Successful Condom Negotiation Strategies among Young Women. J Health Psychology: 2017 Jan 1:1359105317690598. doi: 10.1177/1359105317690598. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 28810400. NIHMS 842344. PMC5561508.
Peasant, C., Sullivan, T.P., Ritchwood, T.D., Parra, G.R., Weiss, N.H., Meyer, J.P. & Murphy, J.G. Words Can Hurt: The effects of physical and psychological partner
9

violence on condom negotiation and condom use among college women in non-casual sexual partnerships. Women & Health: 2017 Apr 12:1-15. PMID: 28402194.
Meyer J, Muthulingham D, El-Bassel N, Altice F. Leveraging the U.S. Criminal Justice System to Access Women for HIV Interventions. AIDS and Behavior 2017 Dec;21(12):3527-3548. DOI: 10.1007/s10461-017-1778-6. NIHMSID 878661. PMID: 28534199. PMC5699977.
Shrestha R, Karki P, Altice F, Huedo-Medina T, Meyer J, Madden L, Copenhaver M. Correlates of willingness to initiate pre-exposure prophylaxis and the likelihood of practicing safer drug- and sex-related risk behaviors among high-risk drug users on methadone treatment. Drug and Alcohol Dependence: 2017 Apr 1;173:107-116. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.12.023. Epub 2017 Feb 2. PMID: 28214391. PMCID: PMC5366273.
Wickersham J, Gibson B, Bazazi A, Pillai V, Pedersen C, Meyer J, El-Bassel N, Mayer K, Kamarulzaman A, Altice F. Prevalence of HIV and sexually transmitted infections among cisgender and transgender women sex workers in greater Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Results from a respondent-driven sampling study. Sex Transm Dis. 2017 Nov;44(11):663-670. PMID: 28708696. NIHMSID 894660. PMC5636657.
Vasquez L, Malinis M, Meyer J. Emerging Role of Actinomyces meyeri in Brain Abscesses: A Case Report and Literature Review. IDCases. 2017 Jul 20;10:26-29. doi: 10.1016/j.idcr.2017.07.007. eCollection 2017. PMID: 28831384. PMCID: PMC5554978.
Azbel L, Wegman M, Polonsky M, Bachireddy C, Meyer J, Sumskaya N, Kurmanalieva A, Dvoriak S, Altice F. Drug injection within prison in Kyrgyzstan: elevated HIV risk and implications for scaling up opioid agonist treatments. 2018 Sep 10;14(3):175-187. doi: 10.1108/IJPH-03-2017-0016. PMID: 30274558. NIHMS951165. PMCID: PMC6447033
Loeliger K, Altice F, Desai M, Ciarleglio M, Gallagher C, Meyer J. Predictors of Linkage to HIV Care and Viral Suppression Levels Following Release from Jails and Prisons: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Lancet HIV 2018 Feb;5(2):e96-e106. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3018(17)30209-6. PMID: 29191440 NIHMSID 924557. PMC5807129.
Hoff E, Marcus R, Bojko M, Makarenko I, Mazhnaya A, Altice F, Meyer J. The effects of opioid-agonist treatments on HIV risk and social stability: A mixed methods study of women with opioid use disorder in Ukraine. J Substance Abuse Treatment 83 (2017) 36–44. NIHMS 914022. PMC5726590.
Harada K, Heaton H., Chen J., Vazquez M, Meyer J. Herpes zoster vaccine-associated Primary Varicella Infection in an Immunocompetent Host: Case Report and Literature Review. BMJ Case Rep. 2017 Aug 22;2017. pii: bcr-2017-221166. PMID: 28830902. NIHMS 913803. PMC5624100.
10

Rutledge R, Madden L, Ogbuagu O, Meyer J. HIV Risk Perception and Eligibility for Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis in Women Involved in the Criminal Justice System. AIDS Care: 2018 Mar 11:1-8. doi.org/10.1080/09540121.2018.1447079. PMID: 29527934. NIHMSID 1502805 PMC6085161
Brinkley-Rubenstein L, Dauria E, Tolou-Shams M, Christopoulous K, Chan P, Beckwith C, Parker S, Meyer J. The Path to Implementation of HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for People Involved in Criminal Justice Systems. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2018 Apr;15(2):9395. doi: 10.1007/s11904-018-0389-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11904-018-0389-9. PMID: 29516265. PMC5884709
Meyer J, Marcus R, Nowakowski E, Glass S, Canney T, Copenhaver M, Altice F. PLUS PINK: Adaptation of an evidence-based HIV risk reduction intervention for justiceinvolved women in the community. AIDS Education and Prevention: Under revision.
Odio C, Carroll M, Glass S, Bauman A, Taxman F, Meyer J. Evaluating Concurrent Validity of Criminal Justice and Clinical Assessments among Women on Probation. Health and Justice, Special Issue: Complex Populations (2018) 6: 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-018-0065-6. PMID: 29627964 PMCID: PMC5889765
Loeliger K, Altice F, Ciarleglio M, Rich K, Chandra D, Gallagher C, Desai M, Meyer J. An Observational Study of All-cause Mortality among People with HIV Released from an Integrated System of Jails and Prisons, 2007-2014. The Lancet HIV 2018: Published Online September 6, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3018(18)30175-9. Volume 5, Issue 11, November 2018, Pages e617-e628. PMID: 30197101. NIHMS 1506381. PMC6279524
Loeliger K, Meyer J, Desai M, Ciarleglio M, Gallagher C, Altice F. Sustained Retention in HIV Care and Viral Suppression over Three Years Following Release from Jails and Prisons: A Retrospective Cohort Study. PLoS Medicine 2018 Oct 9;15(10):e1002667. PMID: 30300351 PMCID: PMC6177126
Ranjit Y, Azbel L, Krishnan A, Altice F, Meyer J. Evaluation of HIV risk and outcomes in a nationally representative sample of incarcerated women in Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine. AIDS Care: Published online 31 Jan 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540121.2019.1573969 NIHMS1519524. PMID: 30701981.
Meyer J, Isaacs K, El-Shahawy O, Burlew K, Wechsberg W. Research on Women with Substance Use Disorders: Reviewing Progress and Developing a Research and Implementation Roadmap. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2019 Apr 1;197:158-163. Epub 21-FEB-2019. Doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.01.017 NIHMSID1013474. PMID: 30826625. PMC6440852
Rhodes T, Azbel L, Lancaster K, Meyer J. The becoming-methadone-body. On the onto-politics of health intervention translations. Sociology of Health & Illness: 2019 Jul 16. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.12978. PMID: 31310008.
11

Meyer J. The Sustained Harmful Health Effects of Incarceration for Women Living with HIV. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2019 Aug;28(8):1017-1018. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2019.7940. Epub 2019 Jul 29. PMID: 31355697.
Olson B, Vincent W, Meyer J, Kershaw T, Sikkema K, Heckman T, Hansen N. Depressive Symptoms, Physical Symptoms, and Health-Related Quality of Life among Older Adults with HIV. Qual Life Res. 2019 Aug 24. doi: 10.1007/s11136-019-02271-0. PMID: 31446515.
Hoff E, Adams Z, Dasgupta A, Goddard D, Sheth S, Meyer J. Reproductive Health Justice and Autonomy: A systematic review of pregnancy planning intentions, needs, and interventions among women involved in US criminal justice systems. J Women’s Health: Under revision.
Qin L, Price C, Puglisi L, Rutledge R, Madden L, Meyer J. Women’s Decision-Making about PrEP for HIV Prevention in Drug Treatment Contexts. J Int Assoc Provid AIDS Care. 2020;19:2325958219900091. PMID: 31918605
Hoff E, Rutledge R, Gibson B, Price C, Gallagher C, Maurer K, Meyer J. PrEP for Women across the Criminal Justice Continuum in Connecticut: Implications for Policy and Practice. J Corr Healthcare: In press. NIHMS 1573821
Manuscripts in Submission Muthulingham D, Clemons T, Marcus R, Meyer J, Yonkers K. Pregnancy as Peril for Women with Addiction: Public Health, not Punishment. AJPH: Under review.
Rich K, Loeliger K, Chandra D, Muthulingam D, Althoff K, Gallagher C, Meyer J, Altice F. Elevated Mortality Risk after Release from Prisons and Jails: Implications for Targeting At-Risk Persons. JAIDS: Under review.
Rich K, Eysenbach L, Joslin S, Marcus R, Brothers S, Meyer J, Altice F. Evaluation of a “One-Stop-Shop”: An innovative treatment and prevention program that integrates harm reduction and primary care services for people who inject drugs. J Urban Health: Under review.
Barber D, Kempner T, Pasalar S, Borne D, Eysenbach L, Quinn E, Rajabiun S, Meyer J. Effects of a Multisite Medical Home Intervention on Emergency Department Use among Homeless People with HIV. J Healthcare Poor and Underserved: Under review.
Meyer J, Franco-Paredes C, Parmar P, Yasin F, Gartland M. COVID-19 and the Coming Plague in U.S. Immigration Detention Centers. NEJM: Under review.
Manuscripts in Preparation
Meyer J, Flash C, Gonzalez N, Pan A, Yuan Y, Rajabiun S. The Intersecting Effect of Gender and Race on Housing and HIV Outcomes in a Multisite Medical Home Project. To submit to AJPH.
12

Culbert G, Azbel L, Bachireddy C, Kurmanalieva A, Rhodes T, Altice F, Meyer J. A Qualitative Study of Diphenhydramine Injecting in Kyrgyz Prisons and Implications for Harm Reduction Efforts. To submit to Harm Reduction J.
Hoff E, Adams Z, Hass A, Dasgupta A, Goddard D, Sheth S, Meyer J. Reproductive Health Needs of Women at Risk of HIV in Connecticut. To submit to J Women’s Health.
Meyer J, Shrestha R, Shenoi S, Wickersham J, Altice F. Potential and Challenges of Same Day PrEP for Key Populations. To submit to Lancet HIV.
Meyer J, Price CR, Tracey D, Madden L, Elwyn G, Altice F. Development and Efficacy of a PrEP Decision Aid for Women in Drug Treatment. To submit to JSAT.
Book Chapters Meyer J, Altice F. HIV in Injection and Other Drug Users. Somesh Gupta, Bhushan Kumar, eds. Sexually Transmitted Infections 2nd ed. New Delhi, India: Elsevier, 2012: 1061-80. ISBN 978-81-312-2809-8.
Meyer J, Altice F. Chapter 47, Treatment of Addictions: Transition to the Community. Robert L. Trestman, Kenneth L. Appelbaum, Jeffrey L. Metzner, eds. Oxford Textbook of Correctional Psychiatry (Winner of the 2016 Guttmacher Award). Oxford University Press 2015. ISBN 9780199360574.
Mohareb A, Tiberio P, Mandimika C, Muthulingam D, Meyer J. Infectious Diseases in Underserved Populations. Onyema Ogbuagu, Gerald Friedland, Merceditas Villanueva, Marjorie Golden, eds. Current Diagnosis and Treatment- Infectious Diseases. McGrawHill Medical 2016.
Shrestha R, McCoy-Redd B, Meyer J. Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) for People Who Inject Drugs (PWID). Brianna Norton, Ed. The Opioid Epidemic and Infectious Diseases. Elsevier 2019.
Other Publications and Reports Paul J (maiden surname). Bullous Pemphigoid in a Patient with Psoriasis and Possible Drug Reaction. Connecticut Medicine 2004 Nov-Dec; 68(10):611-5.
Meyer J for United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. HIV and AIDS in Places of Detention. A toolkit for policymakers, programme managers, prison officers, and health care providers in prison settings. Vienna, Austria.
Other Media Communications Gender differences in the treatment outcomes of HIV-infected jail detainees. Outbreak News this Week, WTAN 1340 Clearwater. Interviewed by Robert Herriman [radio] Tampa, Florida, February 8, 2014.
Caring for Justice-Involved Women. The Fortune Society Reentry Education Project Detailing Kit. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. October 2014.
13

“Safe” Sex with IUDs Is Not Safe Enough. Ms. Magazine Online. Posted December 8, 2014. http://msmagazine.com/blog/2014/12/08/safe-sex-with-iuds-is-not-safe-enough/
Women’s Health Behind Bars- Not so Black and Orange. Huffington Post. Posted December 18, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jaimie-meyer/womens-healthbehind-bars-not-so-black-and-orange_b_6308892.html
Opioid use in women is not just ‘a fetus problem’. Boston Globe. Posted February 19, 2015. http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/02/19/opioid-use-women-not-justfetus-problem/8tTFfEtn4mOJ1K75rxEXPI/story.html
Distinct Challenges Affect Women’s HIV Treatment Outcomes After Jail. NIDA Notes. Posted May 12, 2015. http://www.drugabuse.gov/news-events/nidanotes/2015/05/distinct-challenges-affect-womens-hiv-treatment-outcomes-after-jail
Caring for the dying, behind bars. Boston Globe. Posted online May 21, 2015; in print May 24, 2015. http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/05/21/caring-for-dyinginmates/WNispkkTY8MoI6zYP8tSRO/story.html
Video abstract. AJPH Talks. Posted online July 28, 2015. http://ajphtalks.blogspot.com/
Invited Conference Presentations & Published Abstracts Adherence to HIV treatment and care among previously homeless jail detainees. IAPAC HIV Treatment and Adherence Conference. Miami, Florida. May 2011.
Emergency Department Use by Released Prisoners with HIV. Connecticut Infectious Disease Society Annual Symposium. Orange, Connecticut. May 2011.
Effects of Intimate Partner Violence on HIV and Substance Abuse in Released Jail Detainees. 5th Academic and Health Policy Conference on Correctional Health. Atlanta, Georgia. March 2012.
Frequent Emergency Department Use among Released Prisoners with HIV: Characterization Including a Novel Multimorbidity Index. IDWeek: Infectious Diseases Society of America Annual Meeting. San Diego, California. October 2012.
Correlates of Retention in HIV Care after Release from Jail: Results from a Multi-site Study. IDWeek: Infectious Diseases Society of America Annual Meeting. San Diego, California. October 2012.
Women Released from Jail Experience Suboptimal HIV Treatment Outcomes Compared to Men: Results from a Multi-Center Study. Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI). Atlanta, Georgia. March 2013.
Women Released from Jail Experience Suboptimal HIV Treatment Outcomes Compared to Men: Results from a Multi-Center Study. Connecticut Infectious Disease Society Annual Meeting. Orange, Connecticut. May 2013.
Women Released from Jail Experience Suboptimal HIV Treatment Outcomes Compared to Men: Results from a Multi-Center Study. HIV Intervention and Implementation Science Meeting. Bethesda, Maryland. September 2013.
14

Longitudinal Treatment Outcomes in HIV-Infected Prisoners and Influence of ReIncarceration. Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI). Boston, Massachusetts. March 2014.
Longitudinal Treatment Outcomes in HIV-Infected Prisoners and Influence of ReIncarceration. Connecticut Infectious Disease Society Annual Meeting. Orange, Connecticut. May 2014.
Gender Differences in HIV and Criminal Justice Outcomes. College on Problems in Drug Dependence (CPDD). San Juan, Puerto Rico. June 2014.
Gender Differences in HIV and Criminal Justice Outcomes. International Women's and Children's Health and Gender Working Group. San Juan, Puerto Rico. June 2014.
Violence, Substance Use, and Sexual Risk among College Women. International Women's and Children's Health and Gender Working Group. Phoenix, Arizona. June 2015.
Evidence-Based Interventions to Enhance Assessment, Treatment, and Adherence in the Chronic Hepatitis C Care Continuum. International Harm Reduction Conference. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. October 2015.
Beyond the Syndemic: Condom Negotiation and Use among Women Experiencing Partner Violence (Oral presentation). CDC National HIV Prevention Conference. Atlanta, Georgia. December 2015.
An Event-level Examination of Successful Condom Negotiation Strategies among College Women. International Women's and Children's Health and Gender Working Group. Palm Springs, California. June 2016.
Where rubbers meet the road: HIV risk reduction for women on probation (Oral presentation). 2017 Annual Meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropology. Santa Fe, New Mexico. April 2017.
A Mixed Methods Evaluation of HIV Risk among Women with Opioid Dependence in Ukraine. International Women's and Children's Health and Gender Working Group. Montreal, Canada. June 2017.
Assessing Receptiveness to and Eligibility for PrEP in Criminal Justice-Involved Women. International Women's and Children's Health and Gender Working Group. Montreal, Canada. June 2017.
A Mixed Methods Evaluation of HIV Risk among Women with Opioid Dependence in Ukraine. NIDA International Forum. Montreal, Canada. June 2017.
Late breaker: Predictors of Linkage to and Retention in HIV Care Following Release from Connecticut, USA Jails and Prisons. International AIDS Society (IAS) Meeting. Paris, France. July 2017.
15

Predictors of Linkage to and Retention in HIV Care Following Release from Connecticut, USA Jails and Prisons (Oral presentation). IDWeek: Annual Meeting of Infectious Diseases Society of America. San Diego, CA. October 2017.
The New Haven syringe services program. 2017 Connecticut Public Health Association Annual Conference. Plantsville, CT. October 2017.
Assessing Concurrent Validity of Criminogenic and Health Risk Instruments among Women on Probation in Connecticut. 11th Academic and Health Policy on Conference on Correctional Health. Houston, TX. March 2018.
From prison’s gate to death’s door: Survival analysis of released prisoners with HIV. 2018 Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI). Boston, MA. March 2018.
HIV and Drug Use among Women in Prison in Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine. NIDA International. San Diego, CA. June 2018.
Methadone Maintenance Therapy Uptake, Retention, and Linkage for People who Inject Drugs Transitioning From Prison to the Community in Kyrgyzstan: Evaluation of a National Program. 22nd International AIDS Conference. Amsterdam, Netherlands. 2327 July 2018.
HIV risk perceptions and risk reduction strategies among prisoners in Kyrgyzstan: a qualitative study. 22nd International AIDS Conference. Amsterdam, Netherlands. 23-27 July 2018.
Service needs and access to care among participants in the New Haven Syringe Services Program (SA-15). 12th National Harm Reduction Conference. New Orleans, LA. October 2018.
Oral presentation: New Haven Syringe Service Program: A model of integrated harm reduction and health care services. American Public Health Association (APHA) Annual Meeting. San Diego, California. November 2018.
PrEP Eligibility and HIV Risk Perception for Women across the Criminal Justice Continuum in Connecticut. 12th Academic and Health Policy on Conference on Correctional Health. Las Vegas, Nevada. March 2019.
Released to Die: Elevated Mortality in People with HIV after Incarceration. 2019 Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI). Seattle, Washington. March 2019.
Impact of Trauma and Substance Abuse on HIV PrEP Outcomes among Women in Criminal Justice Systems. Symposium: “Partner Violence: Intersected with or Predictive of Substance Use and Health Problems among Women.” Behaviors across Diverse Populations: Innovations in Science and Practice, APA Collaborative Perspectives on Addiction Annual Meeting. Providence, Rhode Island. April 2019.
16

Uniquely successful implementation of methadone treatment in a women’s prison in Kyrgyzstan. 11th International Women’s and Children’s Health and Gender (InWomen’s) Group. San Antonio, Texas. June 2019.
Diphenhydramine Injection in Kyrgyz Prisons: A Qualitative Study Of A High-Risk Behavior With Implications For Harm Reduction. 2019 NIDA International Forum. San Antonio, Texas. June 2019.
Decision-Making about HIV Prevention among Women in Drug Treatment: Is PrEP Contextually Relevant? 14th International Conference on HIV Treatment and Prevention Adherence. Miami, Florida. June 2019.
Punitive approaches to pregnant women with opioid use disorder: Impact on health care utilization, outcomes and ethical implications. CPDD 81st Annual Scientific Meeting. San Antonio, Texas. June 2019.
How does methadone treatment travel? On the ‘becoming-methadone-body’ of Kyrgyzstan prisons. Harm Reduction International. Porto, Portugal. May 2019.
Effects of a Multisite Medical Home Intervention on Emergency Department Use among Unstably Housed People with Human Immunodeficiency Virus. Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) New England Regional Meeting (NERDS). Worcester, Massachusetts. March 2019.
Preliminary Findings from a Novel PrEP Demonstration Project for Women Involved in Criminal Justice Systems and Members of their Risk Networks. 37th Annual Connecticut Infectious Disease Society Conference. New Haven, Connecticut. May 2019.
Decision-Making about HIV Prevention among Women in Drug Treatment: Is PrEP Contextually Relevant? American College of Physicians (ACP) Connecticut Chapter Scientific Meeting. Hartford, Connecticut. October 2019.
Oral presentation: Decision-Making about HIV Prevention among Women in Drug Treatment: Is PrEP Contextually Relevant? SGIM New England Regional Meeting. Boston, Massachusetts. November 2019.
Workshop presentation: Treatment of Women’s Substance Use Disorders and HIV Prevention During and Following Incarceration. Association for Justice-Involved Female Organizations Conference 2019. Atlanta, Georgia. December 2019.
Oral presentation: Can an interactive aid modify decisional preference for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among women seeking domestic violence services? description of a novel collaborative program and preliminary findings. National Conference on Health and Domestic Violence (NCHDV). Chicago, Illinois. March 2020.
Oral presentation: A Novel PrEP Demonstration Project for Justice-Involved Women and Members of their Risk Networks. 13th Academic and Health Policy Conference on Correctional Health. Raleigh, North Carolina. April 2020.
17

Impact of Motherhood Identity on Women’s Substance Use and Engagement in Treatment Across the Lifespan. International Women’s and Children’s Health and Gender (InWomen’s) Group. Hollywood, Florida. June 2020.
Invited Lectures/Seminars Yale School of Medicine Affiliated “HIV 101”: Yale Affiliated Hospital Program, Greenwich Hospital Internal Medicine Residency Conference. March 2011.
“Clostridium Difficile”: Yale Affiliated Hospital Program, Greenwich Hospital Internal Medicine Residency Conference. April 2013.
“Community-Acquired Infections.” Student Microbiology Workshop, Yale University School of Medicine. September 2013.
“Hospital Associated Infections.” Student Microbiology Workshop, Yale University School of Medicine. September 2014.
“Microbiology of the Central Nervous System.” Student Microbiology Seminar. Yale University School of Medicine, Physician Associate Program. October 2014.
“Fever of Unknown Origin”: Yale Affiliated Hospital Program, Greenwich Hospital Grand Rounds. January 2015.
“HIV and Women”: Yale Affiliated Hospital Program, Greenwich Hospital Grand Rounds. May 2015.
“Clinical Care of HIV+ Women.” Nathan Smith Clinic Lecture Series. May 2015.
“Implicit Bias and incarceration.” Yale School of Medicine Pre-clinical clerkship seminar. September 2015.
Incarceration and Health Disparities.” US Health and Justice course, Yale School of Medicine, Physician Assistant Program, and Yale School of Nursing. November 2015.
“Fever of Unknown Origin”: Yale Affiliated Hospital Program, Danbury Hospital Teaching Rounds. January 2016.
“Management of Substance Use Disorders.” Yale Affiliated Hospital Program, Greenwich Hospital Teaching Rounds. February 2016.
“Management of Substance Use Disorders.” Yale Affiliated Hospital Program, Bridgeport Hospital Resident Teaching Rounds. June 2016.
“Clostridium Difficile Infection.” Yale Affiliated Hospital Program, Norwalk Hospital Resident Conference. October 2016.
“Management of Substance Use Disorders.” Yale Affiliated Hospital Program, Bridgeport Hospital Resident Teaching Rounds. November 2016.
18

“Mass Incarceration: Film and Panel Discussion.” Yale Department of Psychiatry, Psychiatry and Film Series. December 2016.
“HIV 101.” Yale Affiliated Hospital Program, Bridgeport Hospital Noon Conference. May 2017.
“HIV in the Criminal Justice System.” Yale Affiliated Hospital Program, Danbury Hospital Noon Conference. June 2017.
“Management of Substance Use Disorders.” Yale Affiliated Hospital Program, Norwalk Hospital Teaching Rounds. October 2017.
“Management of Substance Use Disorders.” Yale Affiliated Hospital Program, Bridgeport Hospital Noon Conference. March 2018.
“HIV prevention for justice-involved women.” Addiction Medicine Grand Rounds. May 2018.
“Diagnosis and Management of Urinary Tract Infections.” Yale Affiliated Hospital Program, Norwalk Hospital Teaching Rounds. November 2018.
“Bacteremia.” Yale Medicine Residency Program Resident Noon Conference. March 2019.
“Clostridium Difficile.” Yale Affiliated Hospital Program, Norwalk Hospital Teaching Rounds. October 2019.
Invited small group facilitator. “Taking a Substance Use History.” Session delivered as a required component of the Interprofessional Longitudinal Clinical Experience (ILCE) course delivered to all first-year Yale medical, nursing and PA students. Yale School of Nursing. November 1, 2019.
Non-Yale School of Medicine Affiliated “HIV and Addiction”: Rhode Island Chapter of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, 7th Annual Education Day. September 2010.
“Incarceration as Opportunity: Prisoner Health and Health Interventions”: Yale College Class of 1960 Criminal Justice Symposium. May 2013.
“Trends and obstacles associated with healthcare for incarcerated or recently incarcerated women.” Arthur Liman Public Interest Program, Yale Law School. October 2015.
“Incarceration as Opportunity: Prisoner Health and Health Interventions.” New England AIDS Education Training Center, Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine. April 2016.
“Trends in HIV Prevention: Integration of Biomedical and Behavioral Approaches.” Connecticut Advanced Practice Registered Nurse Society Annual Meeting. April 2016.
“Topics in Infectious Diseases.” Evolutionary Medicine course, Frank H. Netter School of Medicine, Quinnipiac University. October 2016.
19

“Optimizing the HIV Care Continuum for People Who Use Drugs: Strategies to Address Health Disparities.” Clinical Directors Network Webinar. January 2017. “HIV prevention for justice-involved women.” Frank H. Netter School of Medicine Faculty Seminar Series. March 2018. Plenary: “Intersection of the HIV and Opioid Epidemics.” CCO Annual HIV and Hepatitis Symposium: Regional Workshops and Annual Update 2018. Washington, DC. April 2018. “HIV prevention and treatment for women involved in criminal justice systems.” CT HIV/AIDS Identification and Referral task force (CHAIR), Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS (CIRA). Yale School of Public Health. May 2018. Discussant: “Research on Women who Use Drugs: Knowledge and Implementation Gaps and A Proposed Research Agenda.” Workshop on Women in Addictions Ten Years On, College of Problems on Drug Dependence. San Diego, CA. June 2018. “PrEP Awareness among Special Populations of Women and People who Use Drugs.” Clinical Directors Network Webinar. October 2018. Panelist and Expert Witness: “An Analysis of Women’s Health, Personal Dignity and Sexual Abuse in the US Prison System.” US Commission on Civil Rights, Briefing on Women in Prison: Seeking Justice Behind Bars. Washington, DC. February 2019. Faculty: “A Grassroots Approach to Weed out HIV and HCV in Special OUD Populations” (Live Webcast). CME Outfitters. September 2019. “PrEP in Special Populations: PrEP in People who Inject Drugs.” New England AIDS Education Training Center Annual Primary Care Conference. Hartford, CT. March 2020.
20

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 19 Filed 05/04/20 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 996

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

DADA, et al.,

Plaintiff-Petitioners,

Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-458

v. WITTE, et al.,

Judge Dee D. Drell Magistrate Judge Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes

Defendant-Respondents.

PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 19 Filed 05/04/20 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 997

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1

STANDARD ...................................................................................................................................3

LEGAL SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................3

ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................................6

I.

Sirous Asgari Should Be Released. ...............................................................................6

II.

Aracelio Rodriguez Should Be Released. ....................................................................10

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................13

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 19 Filed 05/04/20 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 998
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases A.S.M. v.Donahue, No. 20-CV-62, 2020 WL 1847158 (M.D. Ga. Apr. 10, 2020) ........................ 4 Coleman v. Dretke, 409 F.3d 665 (5th Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 4 Coreas v. Bounds, No. 20-0780, 2020 WL 1663133 (D. Md. Apr. 3, 2020) ................................. 4 Freeman v. Cnty. of Bexar, 142 F.3d 848 (5th Cir. 1998) .............................................................. 3 Malam v. Adducci, No. 20-10829, 2020 WL 1672662 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 5, 2020) ........................ 4 Mays v. Dart, No. 20 C 2134, 2020 WL 1812381 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 9, 2020).................................... 4 Poree v. Collins, 866 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2017)............................................................................... 3 Requena-Rodriguez v. Pasquarell, 190 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 1999) .................................................. 3 Vazquez-Berrera v. Wolf, No. 20-cv-1241 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2020) ........................................... 4 Wilson v. Williams, No. 20 cv 794 (N.D. Ohio, Apr. 22, 2020) ..................................................... 4 Statutes 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ..................................................................................................................... 3 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1)(C) ............................................................................................................. 3 Other Authorities Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ..................................................................................... 4

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 19 Filed 05/04/20 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 999
INTRODUCTION Plaintiff-Petitioners (“Petitioners”) fully endorse the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17) insofar as it finds the detention of 13 Petitioners unconstitutional and orders their release. However, Petitioners respectfully object to the Report and Recommendation insofar as it denies relief to two Petitioners, Sirous Asgari and Aracelio Rodriguez. Indeed, since Petitioners filed their Motion for TRO, and even since the Magistrate Judge’s ruling, the requested relief has only become more urgent, as COVID-19 continues to spread like wildfire through the Louisiana ICE detention centers. When Petitioners commenced this action almost three weeks ago, ICE was reporting that 6 detained people in Louisiana ICE facilities had tested positive.1 When Petitioners filed their Reply, about a week-and-a-half later, that number had grown 750% to 51.2 Now, about a week-and-a-half after that, confirmed cases in Louisiana detention centers have exploded to 119, up 133% since Petitioners filed their Reply, and a staggering 1,883% since Petitioners filed this action.3 According to ICE, of the facilities at issue in this lawsuit,
 Catahoula Correctional Center now has 9 cases,  LaSalle ICE Processing Center now has 10 cases,  Pine Prairie ICE Processing Center now has 25 cases,  Winn Detention Center now has 12 cases, and  Richwood Detention Center now has 61 cases.4 According to ICE’s own data, nationwide, only one other detention center has more cases than Richwood, and Louisiana now ranks second among all states in terms of number of positive
1 Petitioners’ Mem. Law Supp. their Mot. TRO, ECF No. 2-2 at 6. 2 Petitioners’ Reply Supp. their Mot. TRO, ECF No. 9 at 1. 3 ICE COVID-19 Guidance, Confirmed Cases, available at https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus (May 4, 2020). 4 Id.
1

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 19 Filed 05/04/20 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 1000
COVID-19 cases in immigration detention.5 There have been 2 deaths of staff at Richwood, largely believed to be from COVID-19.6 This is the “tinderbox scenario” ICE’s own doctors warned it about as early as March when they urged ICE to release medically vulnerable individuals.7
Petitioners, sixteen individuals in ICE detention in Louisiana who are medically vulnerable to serious injury and death from COVID-19, filed a temporary restraining order seeking immediate release. After full briefing, including the submission of several factual declarations from both Petitioners and Defendant-Respondents (“Respondents”), as well as extensive argument on the law and the facts, Magistrate Judge Joseph H. L. Perez-Montes issued a careful, thorough, and wellreasoned Report and Recommendation.
Petitioners do not object to the Report and Recommendation with the exception of its conclusions regarding two Petitioners: Sirous Asgari (ECF No. 17 at 46-47) and Aracelio Rodriguez (ECF No. 17 at 43-44). Specifically, the Magistrate Judge did not order Mr. Asgari released because of a concern about his COVID-19 diagnosis; yet, his symptoms have now progressed to a stage where, according to CDC guidelines, release would be safe and under the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning, release is warranted. Judge Perez-Montes declined to release Mr. Rodriguez, despite affirming his medical vulnerability, because there have not yet been any confirmed cases at Jackson; yet ICE’s failure to test individuals at Jackson means it is quite likely that there are – or certainly imminently will be – confirmed cases there. Neither Mr. Asgari nor
5 And, the difference is narrow: ICE reports that Texas has 121 cases and that Louisiana has 119 cases. Id. 6 Noah Lanard, Two Guards at an ICE Detention Center with a Major Coronavirus Outbreak Have Died, Mother Jones (Apr. 29, 2020) (ECF No. 16-2). There are also 14 cases amongst ICE staff at the Alexandria Staging Facility. All of the other ICE detention centers in Louisiana are run by third parties and not ICE, so ICE does not report the number of cases or deaths among those staff. See Monique D. Madan, Two workers at ICE detention center in MiamiDade test positive for coronavirus, Miami Herald (Apr. 7, 2020), available at https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article241791511.html. 7 Letter from Dr. Scott Allen and Dr. Josiah Rich, to House Comm. on Homeland Sec., Mar. 19, 2020, available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6816336-032020-Letter-From-Drs-Allen-Rich-to-CongressRe.html#document/p4/a557238.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 19 Filed 05/04/20 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 1001
Mr. Rodriguez have a criminal history. Both Mr. Asgari and Mr. Rodriguez remain in grave danger and can make arrangements to shelter in place and self-isolate once released. They, too, should be released for their safety and that of the public.
STANDARD
A court conducts a de novo review of any portions of a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation to which a party properly objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1)(C). In reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, a court may exercise its discretion to consider both new evidence and new legal arguments. Requena-Rodriguez v. Pasquarell, 190 F.3d 299, 307 n.27 (5th Cir. 1999) (new arguments); Freeman v. Cnty. of Bexar, 142 F.3d 848, 852 (5th Cir. 1998) (new evidence).
LEGAL SUMMARY
The Magistrate Judge rightly begins the legal analysis with the central question of jurisdiction. Specifically addressing whether Petitioners’ claims are “fact claims” (challenging the fact or duration of detention) which sit at the core of habeas, or “conditions claims” (challenging the conditions of confinement)8, the Magistrate Judge carefully reasons that, “in the [Respondents’] cited conditions cases and others, the conditions are the targeted harm. When fact claims are mentioned, however, conditions are indicators of the targeted harm: the confinement itself.” ECF No. 17 at 9 (emphasis in original). Next, the Magistrate Judge rightly notes another distinguishing feature:
8 Although ultimately not relevant to this core habeas “fact” challenge, it bears mention that, contrary to Respondents’ position before the Magistrate Judge, the Fifth Circuit has not foreclosed “conditions” claims in habeas. In its most recent pronouncement on the subject, Poree v. Collins, 866 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2017), the Fifth Circuit in fact emphasized that “the Supreme Court has not foreclosed” habeas challenges for conditions claims, id. at 244, observed that Fifth Circuit caselaw expressly rejects the distinction, id. (citing Coleman v. Dretke, 409 F.3d 665, 670 (5th Cir. 2005)), and then “declin[ed] to address whether habeas is available only for fact or duration claims,” id. See also Vazquez-Berrera v. Wolf, No. 20-cv-1241, Dkt 41 at 6-7 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2020) (“neither the Supreme Court nor the Fifth Circuit foreclosed habeas to address challenges to conditions”). The Magistrate Judge did not need to resolve this question because, following the emerging consensus of courts, claims such as Petitioners’ challenge the fact of detention.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 19 Filed 05/04/20 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 1002
“the remedy for conditions claims is generally corrective. The remedy for fact claims, however, generally terminates the detention altogether, or alters it such that a new form of custody or control is imposed.” Id.
Indeed, there are two characteristics which distinguish fact claims from conditions claims: the nature of the claim and the relief requested. Id. The Magistrate Judge notes that both show that Petitioners’ claims are fact claims and thus unambiguously cognizable in habeas. First, Petitioners’ claims “center upon the fact of their detention as the harm to be redressed.” Id. at 12. Petitioners refer to conditions “only to establish that the fact of detention is no longer” constitutional. Id. Second, Petitioners seek release, which is “relief available traditionally, if not only, through habeas corpus.” Id. Accordingly, as Petitioners’ claims are fact claims, habeas corpus is appropriate, as the near consensus of courts to have considered the issue has also ruled.9
The Magistrate Judge then turns to the four preliminary injunction factors. (1) Substantially likely to prevail on the merits: Beginning with the well-settled principle
that people held in immigration detention are in civil, and not criminal, detention, and therefore are protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the Magistrate Judge then considered the appropriate standard under the Fifth Amendment. Explaining that Petitioners “challenge extended, pervasive circumstances that they claim are – by act, omission, or plain necessity – prevalent in ICE detention facilities, including the facilities housing them,” rather than isolated acts by specific officials, the Magistrate Judge, in line with long-standing Fifth Circuit case law, determined that Petitioners’ claims are subject
9 See, e.g. Vazquez-Berrera v. Wolf, No. 20-cv-1241, Dkt 41 at 7 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2020); Malam v. Adducci, No. 20-10829, 2020 WL 1672662, at *2–3 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 5, 2020); Coreas v. Bounds, No. 20-0780, 2020 WL 1663133, at *7 (D. Md. Apr. 3, 2020); Mays v. Dart, No. 20 C 2134, 2020 WL 1812381, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 9, 2020); A.S.M. v. Donahue, No. 20-CV-62, 2020 WL 1847158, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Apr. 10, 2020); Wilson v. Williams, No. 20 cv 794, Dkt. 22 at 10-11 (N.D. Ohio, Apr. 22, 2020), stay denied, No. 20-3447 (6th Cir. May 4, 2020) (affirming the district court’s determination that habeas is proper vehicle to seek release of detained persons due to dangers of COVID-19).
4

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 19 Filed 05/04/20 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 1003
to the Bell v. Wolfish reasonable relationship test, and not the deliberate indifference standard typically associated with prisoners convicted of a crime. According to the reasonable relationship standard, Petitioners must establish that continued detention does not reasonably relate to a legitimate government objective. Petitioners “may make this showing,” the Magistrate Judge stated, “by proving that, due to their age, immune deficiencies, or other comorbidities, they face an elevated risk of contracting the virus, or suffering serious illness from it; that their particular circumstances also heighten these risks; and that preventive measures are difficult or impossible, leaving them unduly exposed to contracting the virus.” ECF No. 17 at 21. In order to distinguish Petitioners’ claims from generalized claims for release, the Magistrate Judge develops a non-exhaustive list of seven factors to consider. Id. at 22-23. Those factors indicated that Petitioners were likely to succeed on the merits of their substantive due process claim. (2) Irreparable Harm: Here, the Magistrate Judge explained, “[i]t is difficult to dispute that an elevated risk of contracting COVID-19 poses a threat of irreparable harm.” Id. at 25. (3) The balance of injuries: The Magistrate Judge correctly identified the competing interests here: Petitioners face grave injury and even death, while Respondents are responsible to protect the public and ensure Petitioners appear for future immigration proceedings. Id. at 26. However, the Magistrate Judge explained, detention is not necessary for Respondents to satisfy their objectives, in light of ICE’s several robust alternatives to detention. (4) Public interest: The Magistrate Judge first notes the public interest in public safety, and then also explains that the public has an interest in “preventing or mitigating outbreaks,” id. at 27, and how much such outbreaks weigh on facility staff, their families, and the public. The Magistrate Judge explained that, as a result, public health and safety are served by reducing the number of people held in unsafe conditions.
5

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 19 Filed 05/04/20 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 1004
Applying this reasoning to each of the Petitioners, the Magistrate Judge determined that all but Sirous Asgari and Aracelio Rodriguez should be released.10 However, for the reasons below, this same reasoning should result in the release of Mr. Asgari and Mr. Rodriguez as well.
ARGUMENT I. Sirous Asgari Should be Released.
The Magistrate Judge’s recommendation not to release Mr. Asgari is predicated on the notion that Mr. Asgari currently has COVID-19 and the medical care is sufficient at Winn. The Magistrate Judge did not determine that Mr. Asgari is not medically vulnerable to COVID-19, see ECF No. 17 at 46 (“Asgari’s medical conditions put him at great risk of complications from COVID-19”), nor did the Magistrate Judge determine that Winn Detention Center is safe for medically vulnerable individuals or that Mr. Asgari has a low risk of contracting COVID-19 there. Indeed, it is undisputed that Mr. Asgari is 59 years old, and has grade 2 fatty liver disease, hypertension, and a lung condition which has led to several lung infections and bouts with pneumonia. ECF No. 17 at 46; Asgari Decl., ECF No. 2-5 at ¶¶ 1, 3-6. These are serious conditions which leave him medically vulnerable to COVID-19. Bazzano Decl., ECF No. 2-2 at ¶ i. Critically, as described below, Mr. Asgari’s symptoms have reached a stage where, according to CDC guidelines, release would be appropriate. Those new circumstances would justify release under the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning.
Since the Magistrate Judge’s decision, there have been important updates to Mr. Asgari’s condition. According to Respondents, Mr. Asgari was taken to a negative pressure room late on Saturday, April 25, 2020 or maybe early Sunday, April 26, 2020. ECF No. 15. He had been coughing for a few days and had an elevated temperature. Id. There, he was given a COVID-19
10 Eduardo Devora Espinosa had already been released by ICE; his claims are moot. See ECF No. 17 at 47.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 19 Filed 05/04/20 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 1005
test. Id. Petitioners’ counsel learned on April 28, 2020 that the test was positive. Id. According to Mr. Asgari, on Thursday, April 30, in the afternoon, he was moved to a large dormitory, along with 2 other men who had been in the negative pressure room with him. Suppl. Asgari Decl. at ¶ 6. Thus, by the time the Magistrate Judge issued his decision, Mr. Asgari was no longer in the negative pressure room. See ECF No. 17 (“At last reporting, Asgari is reportedly under medical supervision in a negative pressure isolation unit at Winn.”). The three of them were the only people in that dorm at that time. Id. at ¶ 6. According to Mr. Asgari, the next day, Friday, May 1, three more men were put into that dorm (which appears to have beds for 44). Id. at ¶ 7. Mr. Asgari reports that his vitals are checked once per day, including his temperature and oxygen level. Id. at ¶ 8. According to Mr. Asgari, he no longer has a fever. Id. He reports that his oxygen level was 98% when he was in the negative pressure room, and is at 98% on May 4. Id. Apart from these reports from Mr. Asgari, the Court has no specific information before it regarding the nature of Mr. Asgari’s treatment. While Respondents claim that Mr. Asgari “has been under medical supervision,” ECF No. 17 at 46, they nowhere provide anything more detailed than that conclusory statement – there are no medical records or even sworn descriptions of his care.11
Moreover, it remains impossible to socially distance or maintain vigilant hygiene at Winn. Mr. Asgari reports that his dorm housed 44 men, with only one shower and two unenclosed toilets (before he was taken out of that dorm, it was down to 29 men). Asgari Decl., ECF No. 2-5 at ¶ 18. Mr. Asgari reports that the beds were less than 2 feet apart. Id. Medical staff wear masks, but guards do not always wear them. Id. at ¶ 19. Those reports of the situation at Winn are corroborated by a recently released report by the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch, and
11 Moreover, Respondents have never provided to the Court the facility-specific plans for mitigating COVID-19 that ICE’s own protocols require. See Venters Second Suppl. Decl., ECF No. 9-12 at ¶ 2.
7

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 19 Filed 05/04/20 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 1006
the National Immigration Justice Center (attached as Exhibit 2 to the Fifth Vogel Declaration).12 That report addresses immigration detention centers in Louisiana, Arizona, and Mississippi, including Jackson, Winn, and Richwood – all of which are involved in this case. It is based on site visits, interviews with 150 people detained at the detention centers, and publicly available data from ICE, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR,” which runs the immigration court system), and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; documents released under the Freedom of Information Act by ICE and EOIR to the ACLU; and records provided by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA).13 Critically, the report echoes Mr. Asgari’s serious concerns about the medical care at Winn, see Suppl Asgari Decl. at ¶¶ 9-11:
Medical staff at Winn showed us what was described as the clinic’s “emergency room.” The room held only a stretcher and had no basic medical equipment commonly located in an emergency room, including a crash cart or defibrillator, both of which staff searched for and only several minutes later found in the hallway. . . . [T]he only doctor on staff at Winn Correctional Center had his license suspended twice before — once at an Indian health services facility and another time at the very same facility when it had housed Louisiana state prisoners. . . . Besides employing only one physician, only half of the positions for registered nurses were filled at Winn.14 The report also details serious problems with access to very basic medications, like asthma inhalers and diabetes medication, raising serious questions about the medical staff’s ability to handle more complex diseases such as complications of COVID-19.15 Nor is Mr. Asgari the first to complain that his need for a wheelchair was not taken seriously by Winn staff. See Suppl. Asgari Decl. at ¶
12 Eunice Hyunhye Cho (ACLU), Tara Tidwell Cullen (HRW), and Clara Long (NIJC), Justice-Free Zones: U.S. Immigration Detention Under the Trump Administration (April 2020). 13 Id. at 4-5. 14 Id. at 7, 31, 35, 45. 15 Id. at 36, 46.
8

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 19 Filed 05/04/20 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 1007
9. The report describes the case of Manuel Amaya Portillo, who required a wheelchair because of a disability, but, like Mr. Asgari, was denied one by Winn staff.16 This report not only corroborates Mr. Asgari’s experience, as detailed in his declarations (Asgari Suppl. Decl., and ECF No. 2-5), but it substantiates Petitioners’ claims that ICE is not enforcing even its own meager COVID-19 guidance.17
There is no evidence that Mr. Asgari is immune from further COVID-19 infection.18 Based on that fact, combined with the fact that Mr. Asgari has medical conditions making him highly vulnerable to serious illness or death from COVID-19, as well as the fact that Respondents have already once failed to protect Mr. Asgari from COVID-19 infection, this Court should order him released. Further, as shown below, this Court can safely release Mr. Asgari, according to the CDC guidelines.
16 Id. at 37. 17 Medical and public health experts, including Dr. Susan E. Hassig and Dr. Homer Venters, have explained that ICE’s COVID-19 protocols are wholly insufficient, fail to implement basic CDC guidance, and, at times incorporate guidance that actually runs counter to that called for by the CDC. Dr. Hassig is an epidemiologist at Tulane University’s School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine with decades of experience with infectious disease, and Dr. Venters is a physician and epidemiologist and former medical director for the New York City jails, with decades of experience specifically in correctional healthcare. See ECF Nos. 9-11 and 9-12. 18 See, e.g., Paula Hancocks et al., Recovered Coronavirus Patients Are Testing Positive Again. Can You Get Reinfected?, CNN (Apr. 18, 2020), available at https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/17/health/south-korea-coronavirusretesting-positive-intlhnk/index.html; Alexa Lardieri, South Korea Says Recovered Coronavirus Patients Test Positive Again, U.S. News and World Report (Apr. 10, 2020), available at https://www.usnews.com/news/worldreport/articles/2020-04-10/south-korea-says-recovered-coronavirus-patients-test-positive-again; Lee Brown, 51 recovered coronavirus patients test positive again in South Korea, New York Post (Apr. 7, 2020), available at https://nypost.com/2020/04/07/51-recovered-coronavirus-patients-test-positive-again-in-south-korea/; Jackie Salo, Whistleblower doctors say coronavirus reinfection even deadlier, New York Post (Feb. 19, 2020), available at https://nypost.com/2020/02/19/whistleblower-doctors-say-coronavirus-reinfection-even-deadlier/.
9

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 19 Filed 05/04/20 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 1008

CDC Guidelines19 (1) The individual has been free from fever for at least 72 hours without the use of feverreducing medications; and (2) The individual’s other symptoms have improved (e.g., cough, shortness of breath); and (3) At least 10 days have passed since the first symptoms appeared.

Mr. Asgari’s Situation SATISFIED. As of May 5, 2020, Mr. Asgari will have been fever-free for three days. Suppl. Asgari Decl. at ¶ 10. SATISFIED. Mr. Asgari is no longer reporting fever and his cough has improved. Suppl. Asgari Decl. at ¶ 10. SATISFIED. As of today, May 4, 2020, it has been eight days since Mr. Asgari’s positive test, and even longer since his first symptoms appeared days before that.

According to ICE, Mr. Asgari has no criminal history. Hartnett Decl., ECF No. 8-1, at ¶ 33. Mr. Asgari has family in the United States who can arrange for a place for him to stay and selfquarantine in Baton Rouge, with a family member caring for him. Suppl. Asgari Decl. at ¶ 12. Releasing Mr. Asgari is not only safe, but necessary in order both to protect his health and safety and to reduce the risk to staff and others in detention.
II. Aracelio Rodriguez Should be Released. The uncontroverted facts are that Aracelio Rodriguez is a 61-year-old Cuban asylum seeker
with severe asthma and a history of hospitalizations concerning his asthma. Rodriguez Decl., ECF No. 2-16 at ¶¶ 1, 4-5. He is being detained at Jackson Parish Correctional Center, and, there he has had two very serious asthma attacks which resulted in his tongue swelling so that he could not breathe and required medical attention. Id. Mr. Rodriguez, because of his age and his serious asthma, is at very high risk for serious illness or death from COVID-19. Bazzano Decl., ECF No. 2-20 at ¶ n.

19 CDC, Discontinuation of Isolation for Persons with COVID-19 Not in Healthcare Settings (May 4, 2020), available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/disposition-in-home-patients.html. The CDC refers to this as the “symptom-based strategy.”
10

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 19 Filed 05/04/20 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 1009
In recommending against the release of Mr. Rodriguez, the Magistrate Judge did not dispute any of these facts about Mr. Rodriguez. See ECF No. 17 at 44 (“Rodriguez is a high-risk detainee due to his advanced age and underlying medical conditions.”) The Magistrate Judge’s reasons for recommending against release for Mr. Rodriguez are that COVID-19 has not yet been detected in Jackson Parish Correctional Center, and that there are only “minor shortcomings in sanitization” there. ECF No. 17 at 44.
It is true that ICE has not reported a confirmed case of COVID-19 among the immigrants detained at Jackson. However, there is no way of knowing whether COVID-19 is actually present in Jackson Parish Correctional Center with more information about testing. We do not know how many – if any – individuals have been tested at Jackson Parish; Respondents simply have never made such information available. If nobody is tested, then there will be no reported cases. Further, because Jackson Parish is owned and operated by a private firm, LaSalle Corrections, ICE does not report any positive or suspected cases among its staff.20 The coronavirus may indeed be present amongst Jackson Parish staff, but, if so, that will not be reported by ICE. Further, Jackson Parish serves not only as an ICE detention center, but also as the parish jail. ICE likewise does not report data regarding any positive or suspected cases amongst those held in the parish jail.21 So, ICE’s public data do not tell the full story and are insufficient to determine whether COVID-19 is present at Jackson.
20 See LaSalle Corrections, Our Locations, available at http://www.lasallecorrections.com/our-locations/ (including Jackson Parish Correctional Center as a LaSalle Corrections facility); Monique D. Madan, Two workers at ICE detention center in Miami-Dade test positive for coronavirus, Miami Herald (Apr. 7, 2020), available at https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article241791511.html (ICE does not report COVID-19 data regarding contractor staff). 21 The Jackson Parish Sheriff’s Office has not publicly reported any known or suspected cases amongst those held in the parish jail.
11

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 19 Filed 05/04/20 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 1010
Moreover, there is a great risk that Mr. Rodriguez will contact COVID-19 at Jackson. Mr. Rodriguez reports that he does not routinely have enough soap to wash his hands, and sometimes must use shampoo. Rodriguez Decl., ECF No. 2-16 at ¶ 17. He reports that there are roughly 100 people in his dorm, with beds only a few feet apart. Id. at ¶ 13. These alone make the only known effective protections against COVID-19 – social distancing and vigilant hygiene –impossible. Indeed, it is ironic that, according to Mr. Rodriguez, facility staff have explained the need to socially distance – to a dorm full of 100 people. Id. at ¶ 14. As with Mr. Asgari’s experience, Mr. Rodriguez’s statements are only corroborated by the recent ACLU, Human Rights Watch, and National Immigration Justice Center report. As the report demonstrates, Mr. Rodriguez is not alone in lacking basic hygiene supplies like soap: the report states that, with respect to Jackson, researchers “received multiple reports that the facility failed to provide people with soap for bathing or cleaning supplies for their cells or bathrooms.”22 The report describes long waits for medical attention and poor access to even common medications such as antibiotics – including staff telling detained people to buy medication at commissary.23 This raises serious questions about Jackson’s capability to respond to COVID-19. This report directly corroborates Mr. Rodriguez’s account, demonstrating that, rather than only “minor shortcomings in sanitization,” there are in fact serious deficiencies in hygiene and the ability to socially distance. There is thus a great risk that Mr. Rodriguez will contract COVID-19 at Jackson.
According to ICE, Mr. Rodriguez has no criminal history. Hartnett Decl., ECF No. 8-1, at ¶ 37. If released, Mr. Rodriguez will go to live with his son in West Palm Beach, Florida. Rodriguez Decl., ECF No. 2-16 at ¶ 20. In light of Mr. Rodriguez’s age and medical conditions,
22 Justice-Free Zones, supra n.7 at 8, 43, 54. 23 Id. at 54.
12

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 19 Filed 05/04/20 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 1011

which place him at a very high risk for serious illness and death from COVID-19, ICE’s inability to keep medically vulnerable individuals safe, and the explosive spread of COVID-19 throughout Louisiana’s ICE detention centers, this Court should release Mr. Rodriguez so that he may selfisolate and protect himself from infection and possible death.
In the alternative, should the Court decide not to release Mr. Rodriguez at this time, Petitioners respectfully request that the Court order Jackson Parish to submit to the Court within one week its protocols regarding testing for COVID-19, as well as to certify that it has sufficient access to COVID-19 tests, including a description of that access. Additionally, Petitioners respectfully request that the Court order Jackson promptly to inform the Court of any suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases among the detained immigrants, staff, or individuals held in the parish jail there.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that this Court adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, modified only to order the release of Sirous Asgari and Aracelio Rodriguez, grant the motion for a temporary restraining order, and order Petitioners’ immediate release from custody. Dated May 4, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Matthew S. Vogel Matthew S. Vogel, La. Bar No. 35363 matt@nipnlg.org Sirine Shebaya** sirine@nipnlg.org NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD 2201 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 200

Baher Azmy* bazmy@ccrjustice.org Ghita Schwarz* gschwarz@ccrjustice.org Angelo Guisado* aguisado@ccrjustice.org Lupe Aguirre* laguirre@ccrjustice.org

13

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 19 Filed 05/04/20 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 1012

Washington, DC 20007 718.419.5876
William P. Quigley, La Bar No. 07769 Quigley77@gmail.com LOYOLA LAW CLINIC 7214 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70118 504.710.3074
Andrew Free* Andrew@ImmigrantCivilRights.com LAW OFFICE OF R. ANDREW FREE P.O. Box 90568 Nashville, TN 37209 844.321.3221 x.1

Astha Sharma Pokharel* asharmapokharel@ccrjustice.org Aya Saed* asaed@ccrjustice.org Brittany Thomas* bthomas@ccrjustice.org CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 11201 212.614.6427
Jeremy Jong* jermjong@gmail.com 3527 Banks St, New Orleans, LA 70119 504.475.6728
*pro hac vice application forthcoming ** admitted pro hac vice Counsel for Petitioners-Plaintiffs

14

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 19 Filed 05/04/20 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 1013

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 4, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing document and accompanying exhibits with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent to all counsel of record by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. I also certify that there are no non-CM/ECF participants to this action.

Dated: May 4, 2020

/s/ Matthew S. Vogel Matthew S. Vogel, La. Bar No. 35363 matt@nipnlg.org NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD 2201 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20007 718.419.5876

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18 Filed 05/04/20 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 949

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

TATALU HELEN DADA, ET. AL. Petitioners

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-00458

VERSUS

JUDGE DRELL

DIANNE WITTE, in her official capacity As Interim New Orleans Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ET. AL. Respondents

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES

RESPONDENTS’ OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, come Federal Respondents, represented herein by David C. Joseph, the United States Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, and E. Henry Byrd, IV. Assistant United States Attorney, who, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and Local Rule 74.1(B), hereby object to the Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) (ECF Doc. 17) of Magistrate Judge Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes filed on April 30, 2020, as follows:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1.
Respondents object to the R&R’s failure to recommend that the Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) filed by the immigration detainees (“Petitioners”) be denied.
2. As a threshold matter, the Magistrate Judge incorrectly determined that the Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate Petitioners’ claims for immediate release from detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 when their claims, unrelated to the cause of their detentions, unequivocally challenge the

1

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18 Filed 05/04/20 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 950
constitutionality of their confinement because of the conditions it imposes on them – claims not cognizable in the Fifth Circuit under habeas.
3. The Magistrate Judge erred in determining that Respondents’ had waived its’ sovereign immunity.
4. The Magistrate Judge failed to apply the correct legal principles regarding the stringent requirements for injunctive relief, including the requirement that “an injunction should be no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief.” Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979).
5. The R&R improperly discredits Respondents’ legitimate governmental objective in preventing detained aliens from absconding and ensuring that they appear for removal proceedings, as well as protecting the community from the dangers posed by criminal aliens. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830, 836 (2018); Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 523 (2003); Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690-91 (2001).
6. The R&R simply ignores the Respondents’ uniform precautionary and treatment measures taken against COVID-19 as evidenced by its’ submitted declarations and instead relies upon Petitioners’ self-serving individual declarations.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18 Filed 05/04/20 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 951
8. The R & R failed to give proper weight to the fact that several of the Petitioners have criminal histories in ordering their immediate release, especially when six (6) of the Petitioners under mandatory detention are aggravated felons.
9. The Magistrate Judge erred in holding that Petitioners’ detention is punitive despite clear Supreme Court precedent holding that detention pending removal is both not punitive and constitutionally permissible.
10. The Magistrate Judge erred in ordering the immediate release of Petitioners, including those Petitioners in custody pursuant to mandatory detention and the two “hunger striking” Petitioners whose alleged susceptibilities to COVID-19 are the solely the result of their hunger strikes. The release of these detainees may have the unintended consequence of encouraging further hunger strikes in detention facilities – thereby endangering the lives of additional detainees.
11. The situation with Petitioners is dynamic. Since the R&R was issued, some Petitioners have been released from detention. Other Petitioners have completed immigration proceedings who are now subject to final orders of removal. The medical condition of at least one Petitioner has declined and is hospitalized due to health conditions related to his hunger strike. These facts are addressed in the supporting memorandum and declaration filed simultaneously herewith.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18 Filed 05/04/20 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 952
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS 12.
Respondents object to the portion of the R&R entitled “Jurisdiction,” Subsection “2,” entitled “The Court has jurisdiction under § 2241 because Petitioners challenge the ‘fact and duration’ of their detention not their ‘conditions of confinement.’” R & R, pp. 7- 16.
13. Page 9 of the R&R erroneously concludes that the Petitioners’ claims are not “conditions of confinement” claims because their claims about their alleged deficient conditions are only “indicators of the targeted harm: the confinement itself” rather than the actual targeted harm. This distinction fails to transform Petitioners’ claims about the inadequate conditions of their collective confinement into permissible “fact or duration” claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Where the complaint alleges unconstitutional conditions of confinement as the Complaint here, it is not about the fact of confinement but the fact of those conditions.
14. Further, on pages 10-11, the R & R confuses Fifth Circuit habeas jurisprudence stating, But the jurisprudence indicates that two different characteristics actually separate conditions claims from fact claims: (1) the nature of the claim; and (2) the remedy requested. See, e.g., Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S. Ct. 1827, 1841, 36 L. Ed. 2d 439 (1973) (“[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.”). As to the first characteristic, by nature, a fact claim challenges the detention itself. Conversely, by nature, a conditions claim attacks circumstances associated with the detention. As to the second characteristic, if a petitioner seeks immediate release or similar relief, the petitioner must do so through a fact claim. But if a petitioner seeks correction of a circumstance or event associated with detention, the petitioner must do so through a conditions claim.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18 Filed 05/04/20 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 953
According to the R&R, any detainee could simply seek release to sidestep the Fifth Circuit’s express admonition that habeas corpus is not a means to challenge conditions of confinement. This loophole would swallow the rule.
15. In a footnote on Page 12, the R&R improperly found that Petitioners’ claims were related to the “cause of their detention” and in doing so effectively eliminated the clear Fifth Circuit requirement. The finding incorrectly endorses Petitioners’ argument that the “causes” justifying their initial detention “have now shifted.” This unrecognized shifting-causes argument impermissibly reads out the Fifth Circuit requirement that, “[w]hen a claim is ‘unrelated to the cause of detention,’ habeas is not the appropriate remedy.” Rafiq v. Myers, 19-cv-0615, 2019 WL 3367140, *2 (W.D. LA. June 25, 2019) (J. Hicks)1 (citing Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933, 935 (5th Cir. 1976)).
16. The R&R erred in recommending that the district court grant the preliminary injunction in light of his own admissions that the law surrounding 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and its application across the country is at best unclear: “[t]hese characteristics may be “blurry” in some situations” (p. 11); “[u]nfortunately, consensus still eludes us”; “[a]nd other [courts] have reached either different or contrary results.” R&R, pp. 14- 5. These admitted uncertainties alone counsel strongly against granting such extraordinary relief. To obtain an injunction, the movant's likelihood of success must be more than negligible, Compact Van Equipment Company, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 566 F.2d 952, 954 (5th Cir. 1978), and the preliminary injunction should not be granted unless the question
1 The citation is to the R&R issued by Magistrate Judge Kay. The R & R was adopted by Chief Judge Hicks after considering Petitioner’s objections.
5

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18 Filed 05/04/20 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 954
presented by the litigant is free from doubt. Congress of Racial Equality v. Douglas, 318 F.2d 95, 97 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 829 (1963).
17. Page 22 of the R&R incorrectly uses the “reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective” standard rather than the “deliberate indifference standard” which applies to civil detainees in this setting.
18. Page 22 of the R&R wrongly substitutes its own “non-exhaustive list of factors” for determining which of the Petitioners is entitled to immediate release from detention instead of acknowledging and deferring to Respondents’ discretionary and developed system and expertise for identifying and releasing “at risk” detainees. This is especially true now that all but one of the Petitioners has been identified as subclass members in Faour Abdallah Fraihat, et al. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al, 2020 WL 1932570, C.D.Cal. April 20, 2020, (J. Jesus Bernal), docket no. 5:19cv01546, Docs. 132 and 133. The district court in California issued an order requiring ICE to identify subclass members with risk factors. Two subclasses were developed as a result of the order.
19. Page 27 of the R&R fails to properly take account of the important immigration detention scheme authorized by Congress and affirmed by the Supreme Court, allowing Respondents to exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis in a manner appropriate to the present challenge. The R&R fails to give proper weight to the Respondents’ discretion and mandatory detention authority when he remarked that “[o]f course, a detainee’s criminal history cannot be decisive, because civil detention cannot masquerade for continued criminal detention for a prior offense.”
6

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18 Filed 05/04/20 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 955
20. Page 33 of the R&R wrongly concludes that Suresh Kumar and Pardeep Kumar should be released from Respondents’ custody despite the glaring fact that their alleged at-risk health conditions meriting their release were intentionally created as a result of their persistent “hunger striking.” Allowing for the immediate release of these aliens approves the ability of these (and future) detainees to create Constitutional violations by hunger-striking in order to secure their immediate release.
21. Page 47 of the R&R wrongly recommends that the district court grant injunctive relief in the form of the immediate release of all but three (3) of the Petitioners. The Magistrate Judge erred in determining that immediate release is the only remedy available to thirteen (13) of those Petitioners based upon his recommendation that one of the Petitioners, Aracelio Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”), not be released. On Page 43 of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge determined that Rodriguez was not entitled to injunctive relief because his detention facility, Jackson Parish Correctional Center (“JPCC”), had no suspected or confirmed cases of COVID-19 and only “minor shortcomings of sanitization having been reported.” Clearly, based upon the Magistrate Judge’s own metric, Respondents are not incapable of providing safe conditions. Not only does this observation demonstrate that these claims are in fact as to “conditions of confinement,” but the blanket recommendation for immediate release, rather than a less drastic alternative, fails in light of the requirement that a “[t]he district court must narrowly tailor an injunction to remedy the specific action which gives rise to the order.” In re Abbott, ––– F.3d –––, 2020 WL 1911216 (5th Cir. Apr. 20, 2020) (citing John Doe #1 v. Veneman, 380 F.3d 807, 818 (5th Cir. 2004).
7

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18 Filed 05/04/20 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 956
22. In support of these Objections, Respondents file herewith a Memorandum in Support of Respondents’ Objections to Report and Recommendation. Respondents also adopt by reference their Memorandum in Opposition to Petitioners’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. No. 8), and their Declarations in Support (Docs. 8-1 and 8-2). WHEREFORE, FEDERAL RESPONDENTS PRAY that their Objections to Report and Recommendation issued in this matter on April 30, 2020 be sustained and that the Court reject those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made and the recommendation that Petitioners’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Habeas Corpus be granted. RESPONDENTS FURTHER PRAY that Petitioners’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction and Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied. RESPONDENTS FURTHER PRAY for all order and decrees necessary in the premises for full, general and equitable relief.
Respectfully submitted, DAVID C. JOSEPH UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: s/ E. Henry Byrd, IV E. HENRY BYRD, IV (#37435) Assistant United States Attorney 300 Fannin Street, Suite 3201 Shreveport, Louisiana 71101-3068 (318) 676-3600 // Fax: (318) 676-3642 edwin.byrd@usdoj.gov
8

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18 Filed 05/04/20 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 957 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 4, 2020, a copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent to all counsel of record by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. I also certify that there are no non-CM/ECF participants to this action.
s/E. Henry Byrd, IV E. Henry Byrd, IV (#37435) Assistant United States Attorney
9

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18-1 Filed 05/04/20 Page 1 of 30 PageID #: 958

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

TATALU HELEN DADA, ET. AL. Petitioners

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-00458

VERSUS

JUDGE DRELL

DIANNE WITTE, in her official capacity As Interim New Orleans Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ET. AL. Respondents

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES

RESPONDENTS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Respectfully submitted,
DAVID C. JOSEPH UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
By: s/ E. Henry Byrd, IV E. HENRY BYRD, IV (#37435) Assistant United States Attorney 300 Fannin Street, Suite 3201 Shreveport, Louisiana 71101-3068 (318) 676-3600 // Fax: (318) 676-3642 edwin.byrd@usdoj.gov

i

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18-1 Filed 05/04/20 Page 2 of 30 PageID #: 959
Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................................................................................. 2 III. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND............................................................ 3 IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................................................................................... 4 V. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 5
A. Petitioners are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their habeas claims because this Court lacks jurisdiction ......................................................................................................................... 5
i. The R&R “misses the mark” in attempting to characterize Petitioners’ claims about the inadequate conditions of their collective confinement into permissible “fact or duration” claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. .............................................................................................. 7 ii. The R&R improperly eliminated the Fifth Circuit requirement that a habeas petition must be related to the cause of detention. ............................................................................... 8 B. Petitioners are not likely to succeed on the merits of their habeas claim because they do
not state a constitutional violation.................................................................................. 10 i. Petitioners’ detention is not punitive detention under the 5th Amendment. .................. 12 C. Petitioners are not likely to suffer irreparable harm if they are not released ................. 13 D. The public interest is disserved by the immediate release of Petitioners....................... 14 E. Ordering the Immediate Release of Petitioners is not narrowly tailored to remedy the
specific action which gives rise to the R&R’s Recommendation .................................. 16 F. Suresh and Pardeep Kumar should not be released from Respondents’ custody because,
among other reasons, they intentionally created their alleged medical vulnerabilities ..... 17 G. Petitioners’ Current Immigration and Detention Status and Medical Conditions and
Fraihat Case ................................................................................................................... 17 VI. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................... 24
ii

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18-1 Filed 05/04/20 Page 3 of 30 PageID #: 960
Table of Authorities
Cases
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979)................................................................................................ 10, 11, 13, 16
Blackie’s House of Beef, Inc. v. Castillo, 659 F.2d 1211 (D.C. Cir. 1981) ................................................................................................ 18
Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682 (1979).................................................................................................................... 8
Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818 (5th Cir. 1997) ...................................................................................................... 9
Compact Van Equipment Company, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 566 F.2d 952 (5th Cir. 1978) ...................................................................................................... 8
Congress of Racial Equality v. Douglas, 318 F.2d 95 (5th Cir.) ................................................................................................................. 8
Cook v. TDCJ, 37 F.3d 166 (5th Cir.1994) ......................................................................................................... 9
Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 ............................................................................................................................. 16
Estate of Henson v. Wichita Cty., Tex., 795 F.3d 456 (5th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................... 13
Faour Abdallah Fraihat, et al. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al, 2020 WL 1932570 .............................................................................................................. 21, 22
Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633 (5th Cir. 1996) ................................................................................................ 13, 14
In re Abbott, ––– F.3d ––––, 2020 WL 1911216 (5th Cir. Apr. 20, 2020) ................................................ 8, 19
Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972).................................................................................................................. 16 iii

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18-1 Filed 05/04/20 Page 4 of 30 PageID #: 961
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 U.S. 830 (2018).................................................................................................................. 16
John Doe #1 v. Veneman, 380 F.3d 807 (5th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................ 8, 19
Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan, 335 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................................... 7
Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21 (1982).................................................................................................................... 18
Marlowe v. LeBlanc, 2020 WL 2043425 (5th Cir. Apr. 27, 2020) ............................................................................. 14
Miss. Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618 (5th Cir. 1985) ...................................................................................................... 8
Munaf v, Geren, 533 U.S. 674 (2008).................................................................................................................. 13
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009).................................................................................................................. 18
Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933 (5th Cir. 1976) .................................................................................................... 12
Poree v. Collins, 866 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................ 9, 12
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973)...................................................................................................... 10, 11, 13
Rafiq v. Myers, 19-cv-0615, 2019 WL 3367140 (W.D. LA. June 25, 2019) ......................................................................... 12
Rourke v. Thompson, 11 F.3d 47 (5th Cir. 1993) ........................................................................................................ 12
S.A., 518 F.2d 175 (5th Cir. 1975) ...................................................................................................... 8
Schipke v. Van Buren, 239 F. App’x 85– (5th Cir. 2007) ............................................................................................... 9
iv

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18-1 Filed 05/04/20 Page 5 of 30 PageID #: 962
Sepulvado v. Jindal, 729 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................................... 8
Shepherd v. Dallas Cty., 591 F.3d 445 (5th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................... 15
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976).................................................................................................................. 18
Valentine v. Collier, No. 20-20207, 2020 WL 1934431 (5th Cir. Apr. 22, 2020) ..................................................... 15
Vazquez Barrera v. Wolf, No. 4:20-CV-1241, 2020 WL 1904497 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2020) .................................... 18, 19
Voting for America, Inc. v. Steen, 732 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................................... 8
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008)...................................................................................................................... 17
Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982).......................................................................................................... 6, 7, 19
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).................................................................................................................. 16
Statutes
8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5) ................................................................................................................... 16 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) ........................................................................................................................ 23 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) ...................................................................................................... 22, 23, 24, 25 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1).................................................................................................................... 23 8 USC 1101(43)(N)....................................................................................................................... 24 18 USC §§ 371.............................................................................................................................. 22 28 U.S.C. 2241............................................................................................................ 10, 11, 13, 15
Regulations
8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(8) ................................................................................................................... 16
v

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18-1 Filed 05/04/20 Page 6 of 30 PageID #: 963
Federal Respondents respectfully submit this Memorandum in support of their Objections to the April 30, 2020 Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) (ECF Doc. No, 17) issued by Magistrate Judge Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes.
The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (ECF. Doc. 2.) filed by Petitioners be granted in part, in the form of a Preliminary Injunction requiring the immediate release from immigration detention for thirteen (13) of the sixteen (16) named Petitioners. The Respondents object to this recommendation. For the reasons set forth below, Respondents urge the Court to reject those portions of the R&R to which objections have been made and enter an Order denying Petitioners’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”).
In the alternative, Respondents urge the Court to narrowly tailor any injunctive remedy by ordering the inter-facility transfer of all or some of the Petitioners remaining in the custody of Respondents.
I. INTRODUCTION Petitioners in this Habeas Corpus action are asking this Court to intervene in the operations of six immigration detention facilities in this district by ordering their immediate release from immigration detention due to the risks posed by COVID-19. They ask that this Court circumvent ICE’s efforts to ensure that high-risk detainees are protected and receive review and release as appropriate (indeed, three (3) of the sixteen (16) petitioners have been granted release in the normal course of custody reviews and at-risk status determinations); they ask this Court to disregard ICE’s mandate and ability to follow CDC guidelines or to provide any constitutionally satisfactory response to this health crisis; importantly, they ask this Court to doubt Respondents’ legitimate
1

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18-1 Filed 05/04/20 Page 7 of 30 PageID #: 964
interest in the continued detention of immigration detainees that is authorized by Congress and recognized by the Supreme Court.
In support of their extraordinary request for immediate release, Petitioners use anecdotal evidence to describe inadequate conditions of their confinement at the various detention facilities where they are held, in an obvious effort to paint a bleak and desperate picture. In seeking relief, they ask that the Court ignore controlling legal precedent and disregard the broader implications that such a dramatic decision would usher.
Clearly, Respondents recognize that COVID-19 presents a significant, fluid, and unprecedented challenge for everyone, including the parties involved in the habeas actions pending before this Court. Respondents’ actions to prevent and protect against the spread of COVID-19 comply with CDC guidance, public health recommendations, and the Constitution. For the reasons stated below, the TRO should be denied, and the habeas petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Magistrate Judge’s R&R errs in both the jurisdictional and substantive handling of Petitioners’ request for injunctive relief. As to jurisdiction, the Magistrate Judge employed an unworkable and unreliable method of reclassifying Petitioners’ “conditions of confinement” claim to a “fact of confinement claim” in an effort to create jurisdiction in this Court. Petitioners’ selfimposed limitation on their prayer for relief does not rescue their habeas petition. As to substance, the R&R ignores key facts: (1) the purely speculative nature of whether or not Petitioners actually have a lower risk of contracting COVID-19 outside of their respective detention facilities; (2) the risk that any of the Petitioners, especially the criminal detainees under mandatory detention pending removal, will ever again participate in their removal proceedings; (3) the fact that two the
2

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18-1 Filed 05/04/20 Page 8 of 30 PageID #: 965
“at risk” detainees identified by the Magistrate Judge for release purposefully starved themselves to obtain their compromised health statuses; (4) the fact that detention itself, a fact that the R&R found to be unconstitutional, is on the contrary a constitutionally valid aspect of the deportation process; and (5) the fact that there are other less-burdensome means available, according to the R&R, to provide complete relief to Petitioners.
Concerns about exposure to COVID-19 is, of course, shared by all. However, an order directing ICE to release Petitioners into the United States—especially considering that half of the Petitioners have criminal histories, see Gvmt. Ex. A., ¶¶ 4-18—is clearly contrary to the safety of the American public. Given the vast expanse and indiscriminate nature of Petitioners’ requested order, the balance of interests clearly favors Respondents, especially considering some of Petitioners’ criminal convictions and status of immigration proceedings. The disruptive effect of such an order would long survive the COVID-19 pandemic, and would serve to release many aliens slated for removal back into the general public. Moreover, the public interest is best served by allowing orderly medical processes and protocols to be implemented by government professionals. See Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 322-23 (1982) (urging judicial deference and finding presumption of validity regarding decisions of medical professionals concerning conditions of confinement).
III. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Petitioners are thirteen (13) immigration detainees in various stages of immigration proceedings at various detention facilities located in the Western District of Louisiana.1 On April 14, 2020 they filed the instant Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Injunctive Relief (ECF
1 Three of the Petitioners, Eduardo Devora-Espinosa, Karthikeyan Ponnusamy, and Desmond Nkobenei, have been released from ICE custody in the normal course of custody reviews and at-risk status determinations subsequent to the filing of Petitioners’ request for relief. See ECF Doc. 8-1; see also Gvmt. Ex. A, ¶¶ 15, 17 (Declaration of John Hartnett, ICE Deputy Field Office Director, New Orleans Field Office).
3

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18-1 Filed 05/04/20 Page 9 of 30 PageID #: 966
Doc. 1) and Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) (ECF Doc. 2) seeking their immediate release from immigration detention based upon their collective concern that they will contract the COVID-19 virus while in ICE detention. On April 20, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued a briefing Order requiring a Response to Petitioners’ TRO two days later, on April 22, 2020. (ECF. Doc. 5). On April 24, an oral argument was held before the Magistrate Judge. (ECF. Doc. 11). On April 30, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) granting in part Petitioners’ request for injunctive relief. (ECF Doc. 17). In his R&R the Magistrate Judge ordered that any Objections be filed by the following Monday, May 4, 2020. Id. Pursuant to that Order, Respondents submit the following memorandum in response to its Objections to the R&R.
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under well-settled Fifth Circuit precedent, a temporary restraining order is an extraordinary remedy that should not be granted unless the movant establishes the following four elements by a preponderance of the evidence: “(1) there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) there is a substantial threat that irreparable injury will result if the injunction is not granted; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm to the defendant; and (4) granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest.” Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan, 335 F.3d 357, 363 (5th Cir. 2003). A TRO, like all injunctive relief, is an extraordinary remedy requiring the movant to unequivocally show the need for its issuance. Sepulvado v. Jindal, 729 F.3d 413, 417 (5th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1789 (2014) (internal citations and quotations omitted). The party moving for a TRO must carry the burden as to all four elements before a TRO may be considered. Cf. Voting for America, Inc. v. Steen, 732 F.3d 382, 386 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
4

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18-1 Filed 05/04/20 Page 10 of 30 PageID #: 967
A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy. Miss. Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985). It should only be granted if the movant has clearly carried the burden of persuasion on all four prerequisites. Id. The decision to grant a preliminary injunction is to be treated as the exception rather than the rule. Id. (citing State of Texas v. Seatrain Inter. S.A., 518 F.2d 175, 179 (5th Cir. 1975)). To obtain an injunction, the movant's likelihood of success must be more than negligible, Compact Van Equipment Company, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 566 F.2d 952, 954 (5th Cir. 1978), and the preliminary injunction should not be granted unless the question presented by the litigant is free from doubt. Congress of Racial Equality v. Douglas, 318 F.2d 95, 97 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 829 (1963).
It is also well-settled that “an injunction should be no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief.” Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979). In determining whether relief should be granted, a “[t]he district court must narrowly tailor an injunction to remedy the specific action which gives rise to the order.” In re Abbott, ––– F.3d ––– –, 2020 WL 1911216 (5th Cir. Apr. 20, 2020) (citing John Doe #1 v. Veneman, 380 F.3d 807, 818 (5th Cir. 2004).
V. ARGUMENT A. Petitioners are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their habeas claims
because this Court lacks jurisdiction The Fifth Circuit, and district courts within this Circuit, have long recognized that habeas corpus actions are the proper vehicle to “challenge the fact or duration of confinement,” whereas allegations that challenge an individual’s “conditions of confinement” are “properly brought in civil rights actions.” Schipke v. Van Buren, 239 F. App’x 85–86 (5th Cir. 2007); Poree v. Collins, 866 F.3d 235, 243 (5th Cir. 2017) (noting the “instructive principle [is] that challenges to the fact
5

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18-1 Filed 05/04/20 Page 11 of 30 PageID #: 968
or duration of confinement are properly brought under habeas, while challenges to the conditions of confinement are properly brought under [civil rights actions]”) (citations omitted).
Indeed, Chief Judge Rosenthal in the Southern District of Texas recently illustrated and correctly applied this principle. Drakos v. Gonzalez, 4:20-cv-1505 (S.D. TX. May 1, 2020). Drakos, a pretrial detainee, sought an order directing his release because “the possibility of contracting Covid-19 at the Harris County jail renders his confinement there unconstitutional.” Id. * 1. The court determined that “[w]hile [Drakos] requests injunctive relief ordering his release, his attack is on the conditions of his confinement, not on the fact that he was ordered detained before trial.” Id. *2. “Therefore, the relief Drakos seeks is not available in habeas corpus” because “[g]enerally, [civil rights actions] are the proper vehicle to attack unconstitutional conditions of confinement . . .” Id. (citing Cook v. TDCJ, 37 F.3d 166, 168 (5th Cir.1994); Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 820 (5th Cir. 1997)). Despite Drakos’s clear request for release, the Court nonetheless determined Drakos’s claims were not “fact or duration” but actually “conditions” of confinement-based.
Similarly, Petitioners in this case characterize their complaint as an assertion that the fact of their confinement, where they cannot be protected from COVID-19, violates their Fifth Amendment rights. They have also made equally clear that they do not seek to improve the conditions of their confinement, nor do they seek monetary damages. This self-imposed limitation on their prayer for relief, restricting their request to a remedy provided by habeas, does not save their habeas petition. A prayer for relief that specifies release as a remedy, is not, on its own, the “heart of habeas corpus” because the heart of habeas corpus is a challenge involving both “the fact or duration of [] physical confinement itself, and . . . seeking immediate release or a speedier release. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 498 (1973).
6

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18-1 Filed 05/04/20 Page 12 of 30 PageID #: 969
The R&R erred in recommending that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 over Petitioners’ claims which challenge the adequacy of disease prevention measures within six (6) detention centers. They challenge the constitutionality of their confinement in light of the unique circumstances presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, and they ask for complete release. But their challenge involves the legality of their confinement only insofar as the conditions of their confinement fail to meet constitutional standards. They have not independently challenged the authority by which they are detained, the fact that they are being detained pursuant to the laws of the United States, or the duration of their detention. Instead, they argue that their confinement is unconstitutional because of the conditions it imposes upon them. This is a conditions of confinement claim.
Petitioners here reveal that that they are simply asserting that, during their detention, they are being insufficiently protected from COVID-19. Since protections afforded by and during detention are conditions of detention, a complaint about a lack of COVID-19 protections, or insufficient COVID-19 protections is a complaint about the conditions of confinement. Where the complaint is about the fact that conditions are a certain way, it’s not about the fact of confinement but the fact of those conditions.
i. The R&R “misses the mark” in attempting to characterize Petitioners’ claims about the inadequate conditions of their collective confinement into permissible “fact or duration” claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
The R&R transforms Petitioners’ clear “conditions of confinement claims” into “fact or duration” claims. In an attempt to reconcile the inadequacy-of-conditions issue at the heart of Petitioners’ complaint, the R&R distinguishes between conditions as the targeted harm, clear conditions cases, versus indicators of the targeted harm: confinement, clear “fact or duration” cases. R&R p. 9. The R&R’s method would create a loophole that permitted any challenge to
7

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18-1 Filed 05/04/20 Page 13 of 30 PageID #: 970
confinement conditions under habeas so long as the Petitioner simply sought immediate release as
her only remedy. Such a method fails to provide any meaningful guidance with respect to
classification of “conditions of confinement claims” versus “fact or duration claims.” Adopting
this method would render pointless the Fifth Circuit’s interest in separating conditions claims from
fact claims.
The Magistrate Judge adds to the confusion and contravenes Fifth Circuit jurisprudence in
holding that:
But the jurisprudence indicates that two different characteristics actually separate conditions claims from fact claims: (1) the nature of the claim; and (2) the remedy requested. See, e.g., Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S. Ct. 1827, 1841, 36 L. Ed. 2d 439 (1973) (“[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.”).
As to the first characteristic, by nature, a fact claim challenges the detention itself. Conversely, by nature, a conditions claim attacks circumstances associated with the detention. As to the second characteristic, if a petitioner seeks immediate release or similar relief, the petitioner must do so through a fact claim. But if a petitioner seeks correction of a circumstance or event associated with detention, the petitioner must do so through a conditions claim.
Pages 10-11 of the R&R
According to the Magistrate Judge, any detainee could simply seek release to sidestep the
Fifth Circuit’s express admonition that habeas corpus is not a means to challenge conditions of
confinement. Poree, 866 F.3d at 243. This loophole, like the previous one, would swallow the rule.
ii. The R&R improperly eliminated the Fifth Circuit requirement that a habeas petition must be related to the cause of detention.
In Footnote 11 on Page 12 of the R&R improperly held that Petitioners’ claims were related
to the “cause of their detention” and in doing so effectively eliminated the clear Fifth Circuit
requirement. The Magistrate Judge incorrectly states that the Petitioners’ argument that the
8

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18-1 Filed 05/04/20 Page 14 of 30 PageID #: 971
“causes” justifying their initial detention “have now shifted.” This unrecognized shifting-causes argument impermissibly reads out the Fifth Circuit requirement that, “[w]hen a claim is ‘unrelated to the cause of detention,’ habeas is not the appropriate remedy. Rafiq v. Myers, 19-cv-0615, 2019 WL 3367140, * 2 (W.D. LA. June 25, 2019) (citing Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933, 935 (5th Cir. 1976)); see also Rourke v. Thompson, 11 F.3d 47, 49 (5th Cir. 1993) ( A plaintiff “cannot avail himself of the writ of habeas corpus when seeking injunctive relief unrelated to the cause of his detention.” 11 F.3d 47, 49 (5th Cir. 1993) (citing Pierre, 525 F.2d at 935 (5th Cir. 1976) (“Simply stated, habeas is not available to review questions unrelated to the cause of detention.”))
According to the R&R, the “cause of detention” requirement, a clear limitation on the use of habeas, can shift to another reason totally independent of the underlying detention. Applying this shifting-causes logic to future habeas improperly eliminates the Fifth Circuit restriction. Had the Fifth Circuit intended to overrule its earlier decisions in Rourke v. Thompson and Pierre v. United States in Poree, it would have at least cited them. See Poree, 866 F.3d 242–43 (5th Cir. 2017) (reiterating the principle in this Circuit and others that “[t]ypically, habeas is used to challenge the fact or duration of confinement, and [a civil rights action] is used to challenge conditions”).
If habeas jurisdiction applied here, the rationale for the writ would be undercut because a foundational requirement – that the complained-of- custody to be unlawful – would be eliminated. See Preiser, 411 U.S. at 486 (“in each case [a petitioner’s] grievance is that he is being unlawfully subjected to physical restraint, and in each case habeas corpus has been accepted as the specific instrument to obtain release from confinement.” (emphasis added) (footnote omitted); see also Munaf v, Geren, 533 U.S. 674, 693 (2008) (“Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention) (emphasis added). Finding habeas proper in these circumstances would reduce the
9

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18-1 Filed 05/04/20 Page 15 of 30 PageID #: 972
jurisdictional bar to require only a request for complete release coupled with the fact of custody, instead of illegal custody.
For these reasons, Respondents respectfully urge this Court to reject the R&R’s recommendation that Petitioners’ claims are cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
B. Petitioners are not likely to succeed on the merits of their habeas claim because they do not state a constitutional violation.
As petitioners are civil detainees, their conditions of confinement claims are, like pretrial detainees, governed by the due-process clause. See Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 638-639 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Due process under the Fifth Amendment “requires that a pretrial detainee not be punished.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.16 (1979). Though the state has a recognized interest in detaining defendants for trial, the substantive limits on state action set by the Due Process Clause provide that the state cannot punish a pretrial detainee. Id. at 535. In this circuit, the legal standard used to measure the due process rights of pretrial detainees depends on whether the detainee challenges the constitutionality of a condition of his confinement or whether he challenges an episodic act or omission of an individual state official. Estate of Henson v. Wichita Cty., Tex., 795 F.3d 456 (5th Cir. 2015).
The R&R incorrectly chooses to endorse only one of the two tests recognized in this Circuit without a proper discussion of the other. As the Fifth Circuit has previously espoused, “Bell's reasonable-relationship test is functionally equivalent to a deliberate indifference inquiry.” Hare, 74 F.3d at 643.2
2 Recently the Fifth Circuit Fifth Circuit issued a decision involving a diabetic state prisoner’s TRO request for changes to the prison’s conditions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Marlowe v. LeBlanc, 2020 WL 2043425, at *1*2 (5th Cir. Apr. 27, 2020). After the district court issued a TRO, the Fifth Circuit granted the Government’s stay because, among other things, the district court’s deliberate indifference analysis was faulty: “We do not question that COVID-19 presents a risk of serious harm to those confined in prisons, nor that Plaintiff, as a diabetic, is particularly vulnerable to the virus’s effects. But, for purposes of resolving Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim, we are not tasked with resolving whether, absent RCC’s precautionary measures, the COVID-19
10

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18-1 Filed 05/04/20 Page 16 of 30 PageID #: 973
When a Petitioner is challenging her conditions of confinement3, this court applies the test established by Bell and asks whether the condition is “reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective.” See Hare, 74 F.3d at 646. “[I]f a restriction or condition is not reasonably related to a legitimate goal—if it is arbitrary or purposeless—a court permissibly may infer that the purpose of the governmental action is punishment that may not constitutionally be inflicted upon detainees qua detainees.” Bell, 441 U.S. at 539. Where “a particular condition or restriction of pretrial detention is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective, it does not, without more, amount to ‘punishment.’ ”Id. The Supreme Court has cautioned courts to “be mindful that these inquiries spring from constitutional requirements and that judicial answers to them must reflect that fact rather than a court's idea of how best to operate a detention facility.” Bell, 441 U.S. at 539.
Shepherd v. Dallas Cty., 591 F.3d 445 (5th Cir. 2009) involved a pretrial detainee’s claim that he was denied due process under the Fifth Amendment due to improper medication and inadequate medical attention. The Fifth Circuit stated that “incidence of disease or infection, standing alone, [does not] imply unconstitutional confinement conditions.” Id. at 454. In Shepherd, the Fifth Circuit addressed the issue when conditions of confinement transgress the limits of the Constitution under the Eighth Amendment as well as the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
pandemic presents a substantial risk of serious harm to prisoners like Plaintiff. Rather, the question here is whether the Eighth Amendment requires RCC to do more than it has already done to mitigate the risk of harm. . . . [I]ndeed, Defendants have been heightening their efforts to contain the virus. Although the virus has spread within RCC, given the many prevention measures RCC has taken, an increase in infection rate alone is insufficient to prove deliberate indifference.” 3 The reality that Petitioners’ claim sounds in “conditions of confinement” rather than “fact or duration” is made even clearer simply by the fact that this Court, in deciding whether their due process rights have been violated, is compelled to engage in an analysis of their “conditions of confinement.”
11

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18-1 Filed 05/04/20 Page 17 of 30 PageID #: 974
In this realm, the R&R cites to Shepherd in support of the conclusion that this conditions of confinement case may be brought under 28 U.S.C. §2241. The R&R, however, fails to recognize that Shepherd was a Section 1983 case in which the pre-trial detainee sought damages. Recently, the Fifth Circuit again relied on Shepherd when issuing a stay of injunctive relief granted by a district court in a case brought by state prisoners under the Eighth Amendment related to prison conditions related to COVID-19. See Valentine v. Collier, No. 20-20207, 2020 WL 1934431, at *5 (5th Cir. Apr. 22, 2020). While the Valentine case was brought by state prisoners under the Eighth Amendment, the Shepherd case was not, and the Fifth Circuit’s continued reliance on Shepherd in light of the pandemic is significant. Id. at *3, (“The ‘incidence of diseases or infections, standing alone,’ does not ‘imply unconstitutional confinement conditions since any densely populated residence may be subject to outbreaks.’”).
i. Petitioners’ detention is not punitive detention under the 5th Amendment.
Petitioners argue that the condition of their detention constituting punishment is their continued detention itself. The argument is based two factors: the Petitioners’ own ages and medical conditions, which increase their risk of COVID-19-related complications, and the detention centers' allegedly inadequate prevention measures. They argue that as a result of those two factors, their detention is not reasonably related to a legitimate governmental interest. The argument is not likely to succeed.
“Preventing detained aliens from absconding and ensuring that they appear for removal proceedings is a legitimate governmental objective.” Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 U.S. 830, 836 (2018); Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 523; Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690–91 (2001). Detention ceases to bear a reasonable relation to its purpose when the goal is no longer practically attainable. Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 738 (1972); accord Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690. The
12

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18-1 Filed 05/04/20 Page 18 of 30 PageID #: 975
prevention of absconding and ensuring future appearance is attainable by means of continuing to detain Plaintiffs. Indeed, they have identified no instances where the government's goal of detaining a particular detainee became unattainable due to COVID-19 risk factors and continued detention. A reasonable relation therefore exists, and thus “does not, without more, amount to ‘punishment.’ ” Bell, 441 U.S. at 539.
The R&R attempts to measure the weight of the government’s legitimate objective against the Petitioners’ ages, alleged health conditions, and the petitioners’ self-reported inadequacies in ICE’s prevention efforts by conducting its own inquiry. The R&R’s purported weighing of interests uniformly fails to include any of the Respondents’ interests. The inquiry fails to consider the legitimate nonpunitive interest Respondents have in (1) detaining Petitioners to ensure they appear at removal proceedings and (2) protecting the community from dangers presented by criminal aliens. Jennings, 138 U.S .at 836 (2018); Demore, 538 U.S. at 523; Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690-91. These authorities and objectives are balanced by discretionary authority that permits Respondents to consider whether release is appropriate for certain detainees. See 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(8); 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5). Indeed, release is a discretionary act that may depend upon whether the detainee is a danger to the community or a flight risk. See infra.
In sum, Petitioners have not carried their burden of establishing a likelihood of success. The government has an established, nonpunitive, and legitimate interest in detaining Plaintiffs to ensure they appear at removal proceedings. The goal of their detention remains attainable and the evidence does not show keeping them in detention is excessive.
C. Petitioners are not likely to suffer irreparable harm if they are not released The Supreme Court’s “frequently reiterated standard requires plaintiffs seeking preliminary relief to demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.”
13

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18-1 Filed 05/04/20 Page 19 of 30 PageID #: 976
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). Issuing a preliminary injunction based only on a possibility of irreparable harm is inconsistent with our characterization of injunctive relief as an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Id. Conclusory or speculative allegations are not enough to establish a likelihood of irreparable harm.
In short, there has been no showing that the Petitioners are likely to contract COVID-19 if they are to be released from their respective facilities. For instance, there have been no reports of COVID-19 positive results at the female detention area at LIPC, where all of the female Petitioners (Dada, de Saavedra, Carrera, Dejaso and Del Bosque) are detained. See Gvmt. Ex. A, ¶ 20. While Respondents respect that a court “need not await a tragic event” to afford injunctive relief, a court must initially establish that harm is likely. Harm in this instance would mean not only contracting the virus, but deteriorating because of it. Considering the amount of detainees currently detained within the six facilities, the number of positive infections, the medical care being provided, and the high rates of recovery, the likelihood of the irreparable injury becomes less imminent. Further, given these detainees circumstances, it is questionable whether they would have appropriate access to medical care should they be released.
In relying on facts and circumstances simply not in the record before this Court, the R&R erred in finding that only with the Petitioners’ release from detention, will they be spared from the irreparable harm caused by COVID-19.
D. The public interest is disserved by the immediate release of Petitioners It is well-settled that the public interest in enforcement of United States immigration laws is significant. Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 34 (1982) (“The government’s interest in efficient administration of the immigration laws at the border is also weighty.”); United States v. Martinez-
14

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18-1 Filed 05/04/20 Page 20 of 30 PageID #: 977
Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 556-58 (1976); Blackie’s House of Beef, Inc. v. Castillo, 659 F.2d 1211, 1221 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“The Supreme Court has recognized that the public interest in enforcement of the immigration laws is significant.”); see also Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009) (“There is always a public interest in prompt execution of removal orders: The continued presence of an alien lawfully deemed removable undermines the streamlined removal proceedings IIRIRA established, and permit[s] and prolong[s] a continuing violation of United States law.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The R&R, while seeming to recognize and value the paramount importance that both the United States Congress and the Supreme Court have placed on the Respondents’ objectives, it goes on to undervalue those objectives by questioning the very need for detention in the first place. In adopting wisdom from an outlying opinion in the Southern District of Texas, the R&R states that, “[t]he Court acknowledges and values those [governmental] interests. But their weight [is limited] in several respects:
[D]etention is not necessary to further Defendants' interest in preventing [detainees] from absconding. …. R&R p. 26 (citing Vazquez Barrera v. Wolf, No. 4:20-CV-1241, 2020 WL 1904497, at *7 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2020). The R&R discusses the legitimacy of Respondents’ conditional supervision program and all but suggests that Respondents should just outright release detainees regardless of their flightrisk or whether they are subject to mandatory detention based upon their criminal convictions. Id. In relying on these generalized assumptions about detention in general, the R&R ignores the disruptive effect of such an order that would long survive the COVID-19 pandemic, and would serve to release many aliens slated for removal back into the general public. The public interest is best served by allowing orderly medical processes and protocols to be implemented by government
15

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18-1 Filed 05/04/20 Page 21 of 30 PageID #: 978
professionals. See Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 322-23 (1982) (urging judicial deference and finding presumption of validity regarding decisions of medical professionals concerning conditions of confinement). This type of burden and attendant harm, and its potential impact on ICE operations nationwide, is too great to be permissible at this preliminary stage. Respondents urge this Court to “be mindful that these inquiries spring from constitutional requirements and that judicial answers to them must reflect that fact rather than a court's idea of how best to operate a detention facility.” Bell, 441 U.S. at 539.
E. Ordering the Immediate Release of Petitioners is not narrowly tailored to remedy the specific action which gives rise to the R&R’s Recommendation
The R&R’s blanket recommendation for immediate release, rather than a less drastic alternative, fails in light of the requirement that a “[t]he district court must narrowly tailor an injunction to remedy the specific action which gives rise to the order.” In re Abbott, 2020 WL 1911216 (citing John Doe #1 v. Veneman, 380 F.3d 807, 818 (5th Cir. 2004).
The R&R recommends that the district court grant injunctive relief in the form of the immediate release of all but three (3) of the Petitioners. The Magistrate Judge erred in determining that immediate release is the only remedy available to thirteen (13) of those Petitioners based upon his recommendation that one of the Petitioners, Aracelio Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”), not be released. R&R pp. 43-44.
The Magistrate Judge determined that Rodriguez was not entitled to injunctive relief because his detention facility, Jackson Parish Correctional Center (“JPCC”), had no suspected or confirmed cases of COVID-19 and only “minor shortcomings of sanitization having been reported.” Clearly, based upon the Magistrate Judge’s own metric –in addition to tacitly endorsing that these are in fact “conditions of confinement claims” – the Magistrate Judge acknowledges that Respondents are not incapable of providing safe conditions. Currently, no COVID-19 cases have
16

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18-1 Filed 05/04/20 Page 22 of 30 PageID #: 979
been reported at JPCC. See (ECF Doc. 8-2). ICE has determined that a transfer of the remaining Petitioners to this facility or other facilities with no reported COVID-19 cases is possible and it is considering that option pursuant to its discretionary authority. Id. In fact, as of April 22, 2020, JPCC has the capacity to house 1000 detainees and currently houses 502 detainees. Id. Considering this safe and reasonable alternative to the extraordinary injunctive relief proposed, the R&R’s recommendation for total and nearly unbridled release falls short. Because the R&R determined that prevention is not impossible as Petitioners allege, the Respondents’ are capable of providing a satisfactory response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
F. Suresh and Pardeep Kumar should not be released from Respondents’ custody because, among other reasons, they intentionally created their alleged medical vulnerabilities
The R&R wrongly concludes that Suresh Kumar and Pardeep Kumar should be released from Respondents’ custody despite the glaring fact that their alleged at-risk health conditions meriting their release were intentionally created as a result of their persistent “hunger striking.” Allowing for the immediate release of these aliens approves the ability of these (and future) detainees to create constitutional violations by hunger-striking in order to secure their immediate release. It also has the potential of endangering the health and safety of other detainees who might follow a similar course.
G. Petitioners’ Current Immigration and Detention Status and Medical Conditions and Fraihat Case
As the R & R provides, numerous cases addressing the same issues facing this Court are being filed throughout the nation. Additionally, Petitioners’ immigration status, detention status and medical conditions change daily. See Gvmt. Ex. A.
On April 20, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued an Order granting a group of ICE detainees in similar litigation injunctive relief requiring ICE to,
17

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18-1 Filed 05/04/20 Page 23 of 30 PageID #: 980
inter alia: (1) “identify and track all ICE detainees with Risk Factors” “within ten days”; (2)
“make timely custody determinations for detainees with Risk Factors”; and (3) required ICE to
“extend to detainees with Risk Factors regardless of whether they have submitted requests for bond
or parole, have petitioned for habeas relief, have requested other relief, or have had such requests
denied”; and (4) “defin[e] the minimum acceptable detention conditions for detainees with the
Risk Factors, regardless of the statutory authority for their detention, to reduce their risk of
COVID-19 infection pending individualized determinations or the end of the pandemic[.]” Faour
Abdallah Fraihat, et al. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al, 2020 WL 1932570,
C.D.Cal. April 20, 2020, (J. Jesus Bernal), docket no. 5:19cv01546, Doc. 132, p. 38.
The district court then certified the following two subclasses of “at risk” detainees:
Subclass 1: All people who are detained in ICE custody who have one or more of the Risk Factors placing them at heightened risk of severe illness and death upon contracting the COVID-19 virus. The Risk Factors are defined as being over the age of 55; being pregnant; or having chronic health conditions, including: cardiovascular disease (congestive heart failure, history of myocardial infarction, history of cardiac surgery); high blood pressure; chronic respiratory disease (asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease including chronic bronchitis or emphysema, or other pulmonary diseases); diabetes; cancer; liver disease; kidney disease; autoimmune diseases (psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus); severe psychiatric illness; history of transplantation; and HIV/AIDS.
Subclass 2: All people who are detained in ICE custody whose disabilities place them at heightened risk of severe illness and death upon contacting [sic] the COVID-19 virus. Covered disabilities include: cardiovascular disease (congestive heart failure, history of myocardial infarction, history of cardiac surgery); high blood pressure; chronic respiratory disease (asthmas, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease including chronic bronchitis or emphysema, or other pulmonary diseases); diabetes; cancer; liver disease; kidney disease; autoimmune diseases (psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus); severe psychiatric illness; history of transplantation; and HIV/AIDS.
Id., C.D.Cal. docket no. 19cv1546, Doc. 133, pp. 1-2 (April 20, 2020).
18

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18-1 Filed 05/04/20 Page 24 of 30 PageID #: 981
In compliance with the district court’s order, ICE began evaluating the “at risk” detainees including all of the detained Petitioners in this proceeding. ICE identified all but one Petitioner here (Gebremichael) as a member of one of the two subclasses regardless of whether they are subject to mandatory detention. Two Petitioners, Ponnsamy and Nkobenei, have been released as a result of this review. See Gvmt. Ex. A, ¶¶ 15, 17. ICE continues its review in compliance with the district court’s order.
The following is the current immigration status and other pertinent information regarding Petitioners here:
Tatalu Helen Dada is a 40-year old Nigerian citizen. She was convicted of conspiracy to defraud to obtain immigration status, false statements in connection with immigration documents and mail fraud in violation of 18 USC §§ 371, 1546(a), 1341 in this Court. See United States v. Dada, 3:18cr0086. On December 19, 2019, she was denied release on bond by an immigration judge, because she is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) based on her conviction for a crime of moral turpitude for which a sentence of 1 year or more may be imposed (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). ICE has determined that Dada is a Fraihat subclass 2 member. Her administrative immigration proceeding is pending a decision from the immigration judge (IJ) on her application for relief from removal. Thus, she is not subject to a final order of removal. Dada is considered a flight risk because of her criminal history and that she has no pending hearings with the immigration court. Dada is detained in LIPC.
Griselda Del Bosque is a 57-year old Mexican citizen. She is an aggravated felon subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) due to her controlled substances conviction for which a sentenced of 235-months was imposed by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. See 8 U.S.C. §1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and (B). ICE has determined that Del Bosque is a
19

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18-1 Filed 05/04/20 Page 25 of 30 PageID #: 982
Fraihat subclass 1 and 2 member. She has an administrative hearing scheduled before an IJ on May 4, 2020 and thus, is not subject to a final order of removal. ICE considers Del Bosque a flight risk and danger to the community due to her criminal conviction. Del Bosque is detained in LIPC.
Suresh Kumar is a 37-year old citizen of India. He is one of two petitioners who have been on a hunger strike. He was found inadmissible under 8 USC § 1182(a)(7(A)(i)(I) (no valid entry docs) and ordered removed. S. Kumar appealed to Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which appeal is pending. He is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The effects of S. Kumar’s hunger strike render him a member of Fraihat subclass 1 and 2. ICE considers him a flight risk, because he was ordered removed by an IJ and has no pending hearings with the immigration court. S. Kumar is detained in LIPC.
Pardeep Kumar is a 28-year old citizen of India. He is the other petitioner who has been on a hunger strike. He was found inadmissible under 8 USC § 1182(a)(7(A)(i)(I) (no valid entry docs). The BIA dismissed his appeal on April 24, 2020. He is now subject to a final order of removal. He is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1) as he is within the removal period. The effects of P. Kumar’s hunger strike render him a member of Fraihat subclass 1 and 2. ICE considers him a flight risk because he has a final order of removal. He is detained in LIPC but scheduled for transfer by air ambulance on May 5, 2020 to Larkin Hospital near the Krome Detention Center in Florida due to serious medical issues related to his long-term hunger strike that do not appear to be related to COVID19. Kumar’s medical condition currently precludes his release as he should remain in custody receiving medical care.
Nadira Sampath-Grant is a 53-year old citizen of Trinidad and Tobago. She is an aggravated felon due to her conviction for conspiracy to dispense and distribute oxycodone in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On Jan 3, 2020, a final order of removal
20

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18-1 Filed 05/04/20 Page 26 of 30 PageID #: 983
was issued against her. On February 5, 2020, ERO New Orleans was notified that the Consulate was ready to issue a travel document. ICE has determined that Sampath-Grant is a member of Fraihat subclass 1 and 2. ICE considers her a flight risk because she has a final order of removal and ICE has been notified that a travel document is forthcoming. She is detained in LIPC. Even assuming the Court adopts other portions of the R & R, it should not adopt the recommendation to release Sampath-Grant, because her removal is likely in the foreseeable future. Upon removal, she will necessarily be released from detention and from the conditions of which she complains.
Matilde Flores de Saavedra is a 78-year old citizen of Mexico. She is an aggravated felon due to her conviction for conspiracy to transport undocumented aliens 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I). De Saavedra’s conviction subjects her to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) due to aggravated felony conviction as defined by 8 USC 1101(43)(N). On May 4, 2020, de Saavedra has a hearing scheduled before an IJ. Thus, she is not subject to a final order of removal. ICE has determined that de Saavedra is a member of Fraihat subclass 1 and 2. She is detained in LIPC.
Rosabel Carrera is a 59-year old citizen of Mexico. She is an aggravated felon due to her conviction for conspiracy to transport illegal aliens for which she was sentenced to 46-months imprisonment. Her conviction subjects her to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. §1226(c). On February 6, 2020, the BIA sustained DHS’ appeal and remanded the immigration case to the IJ. She is pending a hearing before the IJ scheduled for May 22, 2020. ICE has determined that Carrera is a member of Fraihat subclass 1 and 2. She is detained in LIPC.
Sonia Lemus Tejada Dejaso is a 53-year old citizen of Guatemala. She is an aggravated felon due to her conviction for harboring an alien for private gain and sentenced to 24 months imprisonment. Her conviction subjects her to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). On
21

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18-1 Filed 05/04/20 Page 27 of 30 PageID #: 984
December 18, 2019, she was ordered removed by IJ and she appealed to BIA, which appeal is pending. ICE has determined that Dejaso is a member of Fraihat subclass 1 and 2. ICE considers her a flight risk because she was ordered removed by an IJ and has no pending hearings with the immigration court. She is detained in LIPC.
Hasan Saleh is a 62-year old citizen of Jordan. He is an aggravated felon due to his 1994 conviction for welfare fraud for which he was sentenced to 6-months and a 2018 conspiracy to commit food stamp and wire fraud conviction for which he was sentenced to 24-months. On February 20, 2020, Saleh was ordered removed. He is subject to a final order and is in the removal period under 1231(a)(1). On April 7, 2020, a travel document for Saleh’s removal was requested and is pending issuance. ICE ERO does not anticipate encountering difficulty to effect Hasan’s removal to Jordan based on past experience. ICE has determined that Saleh is a member of Fraihat subclass 1 and 2. ICE considers him a flight risk because he has a final order of removal. He is detained in LIPC. Even assuming the Court adopts other portions of the R & R, it should not adopt the recommendation to release Saleh, because his removal is likely in the foreseeable future. Upon removal, he will necessarily be released from detention and from the conditions of which he complains.
Abraham Bebremedhim Gebremichael is a 33-year old citizen of Ethiopia. He was charged with being inadmissible under 8 USC 1182(a)(7(A)(i)(I) (no valid entry docs). Gebremichael has a hearing scheduled before an IJ on May 22, 2020, and thus, not subject to a final order of removal. Gebremichael is the only petitioner who ICE has determined is not a member of the Fraihat class. Grebremichael claims to suffer from Bradycardia, a condition that is not expressly covered in the Fraihat Order. Additionally, while CDC Guidelines define at risk people with severe heart disease, the Guidelines do not provide that Bradycardia satisfy such
22

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18-1 Filed 05/04/20 Page 28 of 30 PageID #: 985
criteria. Because Gebremichael was evaluated for placement in the Fraihat subclasses and not identified as such member by ICE, the agency’s determination should be provided deference. He is detained in the Richwood Correctional Center. Even assuming the Court adopts other portions of the R & R, it should not adopt the recommendation to release Gebremichael, because he has not shown that he is entitled to injunctive relief (or his release).
Rolando Alex Colon is a 47-year old citizen of Honduras. On April 21, 2020, the BIA dismissed Colon’s appeal and thus, he is subject to a final order of removal. ERO is in possession of Colon’s passport. His removal is imminent and travel has been scheduled. ICE has determined that Saleh is a member of Fraihat subclass 1. ICE considers Colon to be a flight risk because he has a final order of removal. He is detained in the Catahoula Correctional Center. Even assuming the Court adopts other portions of the R & R, it should not adopt the recommendation to release Colon, because his removal is imminent as ICE possesses his valid passport. Upon removal, he will necessarily be released from detention and from the conditions of which he complains.
Kathikeyan Ponnusamy is a 41-year old citizen of India. He was identified as a Fraihat subclass 2 member, and on May 1, 2020, Ponnusamy was released from ICE custody. His claim is moot.
Aracelio Rodriguez is a 61-year old citizen of Cuba. He is detained in the Jackson Parish Correctional Center which has not reported any COVID-19 cases. The R & R does not recommend his release. The BIA dismissed Rodriguez’s appeal on March 31, 2020. Rodriguez has been identified as a member of Fraihat subclass 1 and his detention is being reviewed.
Desmond Nkobenei is a 28-year old citizen of Cameroon. His appeal is pending before the BIA. He was identified as a Fraihat subclass 2 member, and on April 30, 2020, Nkobenei was released from ICE custody. His claim is moot.
23

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18-1 Filed 05/04/20 Page 29 of 30 PageID #: 986
Sirous Asgari is a 59-year old citizen of Iran. The R & R does not recommend his release. Asgari tested positive for COVID-19 and is being treated in a negative pressure room. ICE has identified Asgari as a Fraihat subclass 1 member. Asgari is subject to a final removal order. He was scheduled to be removed on March 10, 2020 but flight was canceled due to COVID19 restrictions. ICE considers him to be a flight risk because he has a final order of removal, and his removal is likely in the foreseeable future. He is detained in the Winn Correctional Center.
Eduardo Devora-Espinosa is a Cuban citizen who was granted parole and released on April 15, 2020. His claim is moot.
The specific information provided above supports a finding that ICE is reviewing all at risk detainees to determine whether they should be released in light of the pandemic which further supports that the detention at issue is not punitive. The Court should allow that process to go forward.
VI. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, Respondents respectfully request that this Court reject the Report and Recommendation issued in this matter on April 30, 2020. Should the Court adopt all or part of the recommendations of the R&R providing for the release of any Petitioner, Respondents request that this Court stay the injunctive relief so that the Department of Justice may determine whether to seek review of such decision. Alternatively, Respondents request that this Court stay any relief to the aliens whose removal may be effected within the coming days or weeks, allowing for their removal from the United States and release from detention.
24

Case 1:20-cv-00458-DDD-JPM Document 18-1 Filed 05/04/20 Page 30 of 30 PageID #: 987
Respectfully submitted, DAVID C. JOSEPH UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: s/ E. Henry Byrd, IV E. HENRY BYRD, IV (#37435) Assistant United States Attorney 300 Fannin Street, Suite 3201 Shreveport, Louisiana 71101-3068 (318) 676-3600 // Fax: (318) 676-3642 edwin.byrd@usdoj.gov
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 4, 2020, a copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent to all counsel of record by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. I also certify that there are no non-CM/ECF participants to this action.
s/E. Henry Byrd, IV E. Henry Byrd, IV (#37435)
25