Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-02141/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-02141-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

ORDER – No. 20-cv-02141-LB

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

San Francisco Division 

JOHN DOE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 20-cv-02141-LB 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER 

Re: ECF No. 6 

INTRODUCTION 

The petitioner, a citizen of Haiti and a lawful permanent resident of the United States, is in 

removal proceedings based on his conviction for second-degree robbery.1 He finished his state 

sentence and has been in the custody of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) 

at Yuba County Jail since April 15, 2019.2 He has not had a bond hearing. He has medical issues 

— chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), depression, and latent tuberculosis — and 

given the COVID-19 pandemic and his conditions of confinement at Yuba County Jail, he 

petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for his release or, alternatively, a bond hearing within seven days 

1

 Pet. – ECF No. 1. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations 

are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. 

2

 Notice of Custody Determination, Ex. C to Pet. – ECF No. 1-2 at 13. 

Case 3:20-cv-02141-LB Document 27 Filed 04/12/20 Page 1 of 20
ORDER – No. 20-cv-02141-LB 2

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). He also moved for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to 

obtain the same relief.3 After full briefing and a hearing on April 9, 2020, the court grants the 

petitioner’s motion for a TRO and orders his release. 

STATEMENT4

1. COVID-19 

The World Health Organization has designated COVID-19 a global pandemic.5 The state of 

California has declared a state of emergency, and the President has declared a national 

emergency.6 Our courthouses are mostly closed to in-person business, and counties have 

implemented shelter-in-place orders that require social distancing and the closing of schools and 

businesses.7 These are extraordinary times.8

3

 Pet. – ECF No. 1; Mot. – ECF No. 6. 

4

 In part because this is a TRO, the court overrules the government’s objections to the evidence 

submitted with the petitioner’s reply brief. Opp’n – ECF No. 16 at 11 n. 5; Objs. – ECF No. 22; see 

Flynt Distrib. Co. v. Harvey, 734 F.2d 1389, 1394 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The trial court may give even 

inadmissible evidence some weight, when to do so serves the purpose of preventing irreparable 

harm”). The severity of COVID-19 is undisputed. The information about the petitioner’s community 

support is helpful and cannot be reasonably disputed. 

5

 World Health Organization, WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at media briefing (Mar. 11, 

2020), https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-mediabriefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020 (last visited April 10, 2020). 

6

 Proclamation of State Emergency (Mar. 4, 2020), https://www.gov.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2020/03/3.4.20-Coronavirus-SOE-Proclamation.pdf (last visited Apr. 10, 2020); 

Proclamation No. 994, 85 F3d. Reg. 15,337), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidentialactions/proclamation-declaring-national-emergency-concerning-novel-coronavirus-disease-covid-19-

outbreak/ (last visited Apr. 10, 2020). 

7 See United States v. Daniels, No. 19-cr-00709-LHK (NC), Order – ECF No. 24 at 3–4 (N.D. Cal. 

Apr. 9, 2020); see Statewide “Shelter in Place” Order Replaces Yuba-Sutter directive, 

https://yubanet.com/regional/statewide-shelter-in-place-order-replaces-yuba-sutter-directive/ (last 

visited Apr. 10, 2020); Mervosh, Lu, & Swales, See Which States and Cities Have Told Residents to 

Stay at Home (Apr. 7, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-stay-at-homeorder.html (last visited Apr. 10, 2020). 

8 In the Matter of the Extradition of Alejandro Toledo Manrique, No. 19-mc-71055-TSH, 2020 WL 

1307109, at *1(N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2020). 

Case 3:20-cv-02141-LB Document 27 Filed 04/12/20 Page 2 of 20
ORDER – No. 20-cv-02141-LB 3

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

COVID-19 spreads “easily and sustainably” from person to person, infected people can spread 

it (even if they are asymptomatic), and COVID-19 can survive on surfaces for days.9 It spreads 

even faster when it is in confined spaces, such as cruise ships, aircraft carriers, and prisons.10 

There is no approved vaccine to prevent infection.11 Instead, to control the virus, the CDC (the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) recommends that people stay at least six feet away 

from each other (a practice called “social distancing”), stay at home, wash their hands often, 

disinfect surfaces, and cover their mouths and nose with a cloth face cover when around others.12 

“[J]ails and prisons present extraordinarily dangerous conditions for the spread of the virus.” 

United States v. Daniels, No. 5:19-cr-00709-LHK (NC), Order – ECF No. 24 at 5–7 (N.D. Cal. 

Apr. 9, 2020) (citing articles and cases and taking judicial notice of information on the U.S. 

Bureau of Prisons’ website).13 

The CDC has determined that certain persons are more susceptible to being infected with 

COVID-19.14 These include people who are 65 and older, people who live in a nursing home or 

other long-term care facility, people who are homeless, and people of all ages with underlying 

9

 Ctrs. For Disease Control & Prevention, How COVID-19 Spreads (Apr. 2, 2020), 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covidspreads.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-

ncov%2Fabout%2Findex.html (last visited Apr. 10, 2020). 

10 Ortuño v. Jennings, No. 3:20-cv-02064-MMC, Order – ECF No. 28 at 3–4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2020); 

Daniels, No. 5:19-cr-00709-LHK (NC) – ECF No. 24 at 4–5. 

11 Ctrs. For Disease Control & Prevention, How to Protect Yourself & Others, 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/prevention.html (last visited Apr. 10. 

2020). 

12 Ctrs. For Disease Control & Prevention, Social Distancing, Quarantine, and Isolation (April 4, 

2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/social-distancing.html (last 

visited Apr. 10, 2020); Ctrs. For Disease Control & Prevention, How to Protect Yourself & Others

(April 8, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/prevention.html 

(last visited Apr. 10, 2020). 

13 See also Mot. – ECF No. 6-1 at 12–15 (describing the risks and collecting authorities on the point). 

This factual issue matters because the government argues that the risk is speculative (and that it is safer 

to be incarcerated), in support of an argument that the petitioner lacks standing. See Opp’n – ECF No. 

16 at 18. The government’s fact assertions are unsubstantiated, and the evidence is to the contrary. 

14 Ctrs. For Disease Control and Prevention, Groups At Risk For Severe Illness (April 2, 2020), 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/groups-at-higher-risk.html (last 

visited Apr. 10, 2020). 

Case 3:20-cv-02141-LB Document 27 Filed 04/12/20 Page 3 of 20
ORDER – No. 20-cv-02141-LB 4

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

medical conditions, particularly if not well controlled, including the following: people with 

chronic lung disease or moderate to severe asthma, people who have hypertension or serious heart 

conditions, people with severe obesity (with a body-mass index of 40 or higher), people with 

diabetes, people with chronic kidney disease undergoing dialysis, people with liver disease, and 

people who are immunocompromised (including from 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).15

2. The Petitioner 

The petitioner is a citizen of Haiti who came to the United States in July 2005, when he was 

16, after he witnessed Haitian police officers’ beheading his parents.16 In 2007, he became a 

lawful permanent resident based on an approved Special Immigrant Juvenile Status petition.17 He 

initially lived in a foster home but ultimately moved to California, went to school, connected with 

many family members who live in the U.S. (including his cousins in East Oakland), and met (in 

2009) and married (in 2012) his wife, a U.S. citizen.18 They have lived together since 2010.19

The petitioner pleaded no contest in December 2011 to second-degree robbery, in violation of 

Cal. Penal Code § 211, with enhancements for bodily injury and use of a weapon, and was 

sentenced to three years for the robbery with a consecutive seven years for the enhancements.20

(The weapon was a BB gun that the petitioner used to hit the person he robbed.21) He has no other 

15 Id.

16 Pet. – ECF No. 1 at 6 (¶ 22); Petitioner’s Decl., Ex. F. to Morales Decl. – ECF No. 1-2 at 23–24 (¶¶ 

11–18); Lovedel Decl. – ECF No. 16-1 at 5 (¶ 12). 

17 Pet. – ECF No. 1 at 6 (¶ 22); Rabinovich Decl. – ECF No. 1-4 at 2 (¶ 3); Lovedel Decl. – ECF No. 

16-1 at 5 (¶ 12). 

18 Pet. –ECF No. 1 at 6–7 (¶¶ 24–25); Petitioner’s Decl., Ex. F. to Morales Decl. – ECF No. 1-2 at 24–

26 (¶¶19–31); Wife’s Decl., Ex. H to Morales Decl. – ECF No. 1-2 at 67 (¶ 2). 

19 Wife’s Decl., Ex. H to Morales Decl. – ECF No. 1-2 at 67 (¶ 2). 

20 Pet. – ECF No. 1 at 7 (¶ 26); DHS Record, Ex. D to Morales Decl. – ECF No. 1-2 at 17–18. 

21 Petitioner’s Decl., Ex. F. to Morales Decl. – ECF No. 1-2 at 27 (¶ 35). 

Case 3:20-cv-02141-LB Document 27 Filed 04/12/20 Page 4 of 20
ORDER – No. 20-cv-02141-LB 5

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

criminal history.22 He served eight years of his ten-year sentence (slightly less than the ordinary 

85% because of good-time and educational-merit credits) and was released from Folsom State 

Prison on April 15, 2019.23 His declaration in support of his application for adjustment of status 

describes his activities at Folsom, including obtaining his high-school diploma, vocational training 

in electronics, mental-health treatment, reconnecting to the spiritual practice (called Ifa) of his 

father, learning and then teaching guitar, performing with a band, and charitable work.24 He 

apparently had no disciplinary violations at Folsom.25 A psychological assessment of him includes 

a review of his prison records, confirms his mental-health diagnosis and his extensive (and 

successful) educational, therapeutic, and charitable activities.26

The petitioner has been in ICE custody since April 15, 2019 and has not had a bond hearing.27 

A G4S security officer — a company that contracts with ICE — groped the petitioner on at 

least two separate legal visits in San Francisco between September and December 2019.28 The 

petitioner and several other victims reported the assault to the San Francisco Police Department 

22 See Pet. – ECF No. 1 at 7 (¶¶ 26, 28); Rabinovich Decl. – ECF No. 1-4 at 2 (¶ 3); DHS Record, Ex. 

D to Morales Decl. – ECF No. 1-2 at 17–18. 

23 Rabinovich Decl. – ECF No. 1-4 at 2 (¶ 3). 

24 Petitioner’s Decl., Ex. F to Morales Decl. – ECF No. 1-2 at 28–32 (¶¶ 40–71). Ifa is a practice 

focused on building a “character of humility and compassion.” Id. at 30 (¶ 56). 

25 See id. at 31 (¶ 69). 

26 In the psychological evaluation (credited by the IJ), the psychologist reviewed prison records 

reflecting the diagnosis of chronic PTSD, depression, anxiety, and symptoms that included 

sleeplessness and nightmares. Shidlo Decl., Ex. G to Morales Decl. – ECF No. 1-2 at 39 (¶¶ 14–22). 

The records show the petitioner’s participation in therapy, religious programs, a band, and college and 

electronics courses. Id. (¶ 15). An annual review at Folsom notes that the petitioner did not engage in 

any cell violence or predatory behavior toward inmates or staff. Id. (¶ 16). The records reflect all of the 

petitioner’s programming and describe him as a role model, a motivated student, disciplined, reliable, 

and hardworking, with the “right attitude for employment.” Id. at 40–41 (¶¶ 17–22). The assessment 

synopsizes the petitioner’s background and experiences (including the crime), describes the tests that 

the psychologist administered, confirms the diagnosis of PTSD and Depressive Disorder NOS, finds 

him credible, finds that he presented a low risk of violence, and opines that with good mental-health 

treatment, the petitioner is likely to function successfully, both socially and vocationally. Id. at 41–53 

(¶¶ 23–63). 

27 Pet. – ECF No. 1 at 6 (¶ 21); Rabinovich Decl. – ECF No. 1-4 at 4 (¶ 8). 

28 Rabinovich Decl. – ECF No. 1-4 at 3 (¶ 7). 

Case 3:20-cv-02141-LB Document 27 Filed 04/12/20 Page 5 of 20
ORDER – No. 20-cv-02141-LB 6

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

(“SFPD”), which investigated the assault.29 SFPD Sergeant-Inspector Antonio Flores signed a 

Form I-918 Supplement, U Nonimmigration Status Certification, certifying him as a victim of the 

qualifying crimes of Abusive Sexual Contact and Sexual Assault, and reflecting the petitioner’s 

cooperation and truthful information.30 This allows the petitioner to file for a U visa.31

The petitioner has been diagnosed with chronic PTSD, depression, and latent tuberculosis.32

He has nightmares, usually about his parents’ death, and experiences fear, anxiety, tightness in his 

chest, and trouble sleeping.33 

One article describes PTSD as — in addition to a chronic psychiatric illness — a “somatic 

condition, such that patients with PTSD have been found to have a biological alterations in several 

primary pathways involving the neuroendocrine and immune systems.”34 Mira Zein, M.D., 

M.P.H., who is a Clinical Assistant Professor at Stanford University School of Medicine, 

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, describes how depression, stress, and PTSD 

affect the immune system.35 “Growing evidence demonstrates that PTSD, anxiety/stress, and 

depression can lead to decreased immune response and increased risk of infections.”36 These 

illnesses are “linked with elevated stress levels,” which can impact immune responses.37

“Depression, anxiety, and PTSD have all been found to directly stimulate production of proinflammatory cytokines, as well as downregulate cellular immunity leading to increased risk of 

29 Id.

30 Id.; Supp. B, U Nonimmigrant Status Certification, Ex. C to Morales Decl. – ECF No. 1-3 at 50–53. 

31 Rabinovich Decl. – ECF No. 1-4 at 3 (¶ 7). 

32 Pet. – ECF No. 1 at 2 (¶ 1), 9 (¶ 33), 26 (¶ 75); Shidlo Decl., Ex. G to Morales Dec. – ECF No. 1-2 

at 36 (¶ 2); see also Zein Decl., Ex. AA to Morales Supp. Decl. – ECF No. 19-1 at 7–9. 

33 Petitioner’s Decl., Ex. F to Morales Decl. – ECF No. 1-2 at 28–29 (¶¶ 40–54). 

34 Neigh & Ali, Co-Morbidity of PTSD and Immune System Dysfunction: Opportunities for Treatment, 

Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. (Author Manuscript) (Aug. 1, 2017), 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4992603/pdf/nihms805030.pdf 

35 Zein Decl., Ex. AA to Morales Third Decl. – ECF No. 19-1. M.P.H. is a Master’s Degree in Public 

Health. 

36 Id. at 5. 

37 Id. at 7. 

Case 3:20-cv-02141-LB Document 27 Filed 04/12/20 Page 6 of 20
ORDER – No. 20-cv-02141-LB 7

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

acute and prolonged infection, and delayed wound healing.”38 She concludes that weakened 

immunity due to mental-health disorders can put detainees “at increased risk of contracting and 

suffering from more severe forms of COVID-19.”39 

Carlos Franco-Paredes, M.D., M.P.H., D.T.M.H., who is an Associate Professor of Medicine 

at the University of Colorado Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, describes 

COVID-19 risks at immigration detention centers.40 “The physical and emotional trauma that 

detainees and asylum seekers experience can weaken their immune systems, resulting in increased 

risk of severe manifestations of infections.”41 Other countries have identified people with “severe 

psychiatric illness” as a group at “high risk of dying [from COVID-19] regardless of their age.”42

The petitioner also suffers from latent tuberculosis.43 Initially, he described his medical 

condition thusly: “it is unclear how the novel coronavirus will interact with” the petitioner’s latent 

tuberculosis.44 Subsequently, he submitted additional information.45 Tuberculosis, like COVID-19, 

is a respiratory disease.46 George Martinez, M.D., who conducted the petitioner’s medical 

examination for his immigration proceedings, did not specify a definite relationship between latent 

tuberculosis and COVID-19, given that the virus is still new to healthcare professionals.47 One 

observational study studied the relationship of tuberculosis and COVID-19 in 36 confirmed 

COVID-19 patients.48 It found that “individuals with latent or active TB [Tuberculosis] may be 

38 Id. 

39 Id. at 9. 

40 Franco-Paredes Decl., Ex. S to Morales Decl. – ECF No. 1-3 at 78–90. D.T.M.H. is a diploma in 

tropical medicine and hygiene. 

41 Id. at 81. 

42 Id. at 82. 

43 Pet. – ECF No. 1 at 26 (¶ 75); Rabinovich Decl. – ECF No. 1-4 at 7 (¶ 24). 

44 Pet.– ECF No. 1 at 26 (¶ 75) (citing Rabinovitch Decl. – ECF No. 1-4 at 7 (¶ 24)). 

45 Mot. – ECF No. 26. Given the nature of the proceedings, and for the reasons described above, the 

court considers the additional submission. 

46 Chen Study, Ex. A to Rabinovich Decl. – ECF No. 26-1 at 12. 

47 Rabinovich Decl. – ECF No. 1-4 at 7 (¶ 24). 

48 Chen Study, Ex. A to Rabinovich Decl. – ECF No. 26-1 at 6, 9–10. 

Case 3:20-cv-02141-LB Document 27 Filed 04/12/20 Page 7 of 20
ORDER – No. 20-cv-02141-LB 8

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

more susceptible to SARS-CoV-249 infection.”50 It also found that “COVID-19 disease 

progression may be more rapid and severe” in those with latent or active tuberculosis.51 It 

identified “tuberculosis history (both of active TB and latent TB) [as] an important risk factor for 

SARS-CoV-2 infection.”52 The study noted that its findings are limited because it is based on a 

low number of cases.53 

If he is released, the petitioner has said that he will live with his wife in Oakland, California.54

In her declarations, the petitioner’s wife describes their close relationship, his relationship with her 

son and other children in the family, his creativity and support, his rehabilitation, and her need for 

his support given her health issues.55 She identifies her two-bedroom apartment in Oakland as 

their residence, describes how they will be able to practice social distancing, and describes the 

substantial precautions she follows to ensure her health, such as washing her hands, wearing a 

mask and gloves outside, immediately washing her clothes when she returns to her home, cleaning 

frequently, and washing her hands frequently.56 

Because the petitioner is on County parole, he will have access to robust mental-health, 

educational, job-training, and job-placement services.57

49 SARS-COV-2 is the virus for COVID-19. World Health Org., Naming the coronavirus (COVID-19) 

and the virus that causes it, https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus2019/technical-guidance/naming-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-2019)-and-the-virus-that-causes-it 

(last visited Apr. 11, 2020). 

50 Chen Study, Ex. A to Rabinovich Decl. – ECF No. 26-1 at 11. 

51 Id.

52 Id. at 5–6. 

53 Id. at 12. The study has not been peer-reviewed, given that it was posted on March 16, 2020. 

54 Rabinovich Decl. – ECF No. 1-4 at 8 (¶ 30). 

55 See Wife’s Decl., Ex. H to Morales Decl. – ECF No. 1-2 at 67–71 (¶¶ 2–29); Wife’s Decl., Ex. BB 

to Morales Third Decl. – ECF No. 19-1 at 19 (¶¶ 3–4). 

56 See Wife’s Decl., Ex. BB to Morales Third Decl. – ECF No. 19-1 at 19 (¶¶ 2–5). 

57 Letter, Ex. CC to Morales Third Decl. – ECF No. 19-1 at 22–31. Alameda County is resource-rich 

for those on County supervision. 

Case 3:20-cv-02141-LB Document 27 Filed 04/12/20 Page 8 of 20
ORDER – No. 20-cv-02141-LB 9

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

3. Immigration Proceedings 

The petitioner’s conviction is an aggravated felony, which means that he is removable under 

§ 273(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).58 The petitioner advanced two claims for relief from removal: an adjustment 

of status (based on an approved spousal visa) and protection under the Convention Against 

Torture.59 On February 13, 2020, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied the application for relief 

and ordered the petitioner removed to Haiti.60 The IJ “observed the [petitioner’s] demeanor and 

analyzed his testimony for consistency, specificity, and persuasiveness” and found his testimony 

“plausible, believable, candid, and generally consistent.”61 “After considering the totality of the 

evidence and weighing all the relevant factors,” the IJ found the petitioner “credible and 

accord[ed] his testimony full evidentiary weight,” and also found credible the testimony of the 

petitioner’s wife and the examining psychologist (summarized above).62 

On March 2, 2020, the petitioner timely appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals.63

There is no briefing schedule, and the timeline for a decision is anywhere from six months to over 

a year.64 

As mentioned above, the petitioner has said that he will apply for a U visa.65

58 Pet. – ECF No. 1 at 7 (¶ 28); Notice to Appear, Ex. A to Morales Decl. – ECF No. 1-2 at 6. 

59 Pet. – ECF No. 1 at 7–8 (¶ 29); see also IJ Order, Ex. L to Morales Decl. – ECF No. 1-3 at 32–42. 

60 IJ Order, Ex. M to Morales Decl. – ECF No 1-3 at 42. 

61 Id. at 34. 

62 Id. at 36 (summarizing the psychologist’s diagnoses, the strong family relationships, and the 

petitioner’s wife’s need for support from her husband, given her own ailments, and also finding other 

witnesses credible). 

63 Pet. – ECF No. 1 at 8 (¶ 32); Notice of Appeal, Ex. M to Morales Decl. – ECF No 1-3 at 44. 

64 Rabinovich Decl. – ECF No. 1-4 at 3 (¶¶ 5–6). 

65 Id. (¶ 7). 

Case 3:20-cv-02141-LB Document 27 Filed 04/12/20 Page 9 of 20
ORDER – No. 20-cv-02141-LB 10

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

4. The Conditions of Confinement at Yuba County Jail 

The petitioner’s housing unit is detained in “Pod C,” a large open space in the basement, 

housing 50 people, and divided into an upstairs and a downstairs.66 The detainees sleep 

downstairs, in an open room with beds about three to four feet apart.67 The upstairs has a 

communal dining area, the commissary, and an exercise space. 68 There are phones and bathrooms 

upstairs and downstairs.69 There are six sinks in the pod, and one has hot water for food 

preparation.70 The sinks have push-button faucets that stay on for only a short time and require 

repeated pressing to complete a handwashing.71 The detainees have three meals a day, served 

communally, at tables that seat six people, and some eat on their cots because there are not enough 

spaces in the dining room.72 

Until March 19, 2020, according to the petitioner, no jail employee cleaned inside the pod, 

though detainees cleaned occasionally (possibly weekly) and had to ask a guard for cleaning 

supplies (kept in a locked closet).73 Before March 19, 2020, detainees could obtain soap only by 

buying it at the commissary, and they could not buy hand sanitizer.74 Starting on March 20, 2020, 

jail officials began distributing small bars of soap that disintegrate quickly, allow only a couple of 

hand washes, and did not always allow distribution to all detainees.75 There are no masks for 

detainees, but some (not all) staff members have masks now.76 

66 Id. at 4 (¶¶ 10–12). 

67 Id. (¶ 12). 

68 Id. 

69 Id.

70 Id.

71 Id.

72 Id. at 5 (¶ 13). 

73 Id. (¶ 14)). 

74 Id. (¶ 15). 

75 Rabinovich Decl. – ECF No. 19-2 at 2 (¶ 4). 

76 Id. at 2–3 (¶ 6). 

Case 3:20-cv-02141-LB Document 27 Filed 04/12/20 Page 10 of 20
ORDER – No. 20-cv-02141-LB 11

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

According to the government, the jail can house 210 detainees.77 Since March 11, 2020 (the 

date that the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic), ICE’s 

Enforcement and Removal Operations is “taking affirmative steps to reduce the number of 

detainees” at Yuba County Jail and has reduced the population (from 168 to 150) by 10 percent.78

As of April 2, 2020, there are 150 detainees at Yuba, 140 male and 10 female.79 The number of 

detainees can fluctuate based on book-ins and releases.80 ICE is assessing detainees at intake, 

placing any detainees with COVID-19 symptoms in quarantine (and testing them), and thereafter 

providing appropriate treatment.81As of April 9, 2020, there are no suspected or confirmed cases 

of COVID-19 at Yuba.82 The jail has “increased sanitation frequency and provides sanitation 

supplies including disinfectants, sanitizer, and soap in every housing unit,” and the “administration 

is encouraging both staff and the general staff population to use these [hygiene] tools often and 

liberally.”83 It has suspended in-person visits and limited professional visits to noncontact visits.84

It screens all staff and vendors for body temperature when they enter the facilities.85 It provides 

education to staff and detainees on the importance of hand-washing and other hygiene measures.86

It has “identified housing units for the quarantine of patients who are suspected of or test positive 

for COVID-19” (after the assessment and monitoring protocols that apply during intake).87 

77 Lovedel Decl. – ECF No. 16-1 at 4 (¶ 7). 

78 Id. 

79 Id. 

80 Id. The petitioner replies to this point by pointing to increased book-ins and a resulting increased 

population of detainees. Reply – ECF No. 19 at 6–7; Zukin Decl., Ex. H to Morales Decl. – ECF No. 

19-1 at 118–120 (¶¶ 4–8). 

81 Moon Decl. – ECF No. 16-2 at 5–6 (¶¶ 8–10). 

82 See Moon Decl. – ECF No. 16-2 at 6 (¶ 12) (“As of March 26, 2020 there are zero suspected cases 

of COVID-19 in the Yuba County Jail and zero confirmed cases”); Lovedel Decl. – ECF No. 16-1 at 5 

(¶ 11). The respondent said at the April 9, 2020 hearing that this remains the case. 

83 Moon Decl. – ECF No. 16-2 at 6 (¶ 14). 

84 Id. (¶ 15). 

85 Id. (¶ 16). 

86 Id. at 7 (¶ 18). 

87 Id. (¶ 19). 

Case 3:20-cv-02141-LB Document 27 Filed 04/12/20 Page 11 of 20
ORDER – No. 20-cv-02141-LB 12

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

5. Procedural Background 

In his § 2241 petition, the petitioner challenges the conditions of his confinement (based on his 

inability to address his medical vulnerabilities through CDC-recommended measures such as 

social distancing and using cleaning products) and claims that his continued detention violates (1) 

his substantive due-process right under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to be 

detained in a safe situation, free from punitive conditions of confinement, and (2) his procedural 

due-process right to a bond hearing under the Fifth Amendment.88 

The court granted the petitioner’s unopposed motion to proceed pseudonymously.89 The court 

held a hearing on the TRO on April 9, 2020.90

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

A TRO preserves the status quo and prevents irreparable harm until a hearing can be held on a 

preliminary-injunction application. Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & 

Auto Truck Drivers, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). A TRO is an “extraordinary remedy” that the court 

should award only when a plaintiff makes a clear showing that it is entitled to such relief. Winter 

v. Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). 

The standards for a TRO and a preliminary injunction are the same. Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. 

v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). A movant must demonstrate 

(1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm that would result if 

an injunction were not issued, (3) the balance of equities tips in favor of the plaintiff, and (4) an 

injunction is in the public interest. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. The irreparable injury must be both 

likely and immediate. Id. at 20–21. “[A] plaintiff must demonstrate immediate threatened injury as 

a prerequisite to preliminary injunctive relief.” Caribbean Marine Serv. Co. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 

668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988). 

88 Id. at 29–30 (¶¶ 83–90). 

89 Order – ECF No. 10; Statement of Non-Opposition – ECF No. 9. 

90 Mot. – ECF No. 6; Opp’n – ECF Nos. 16, 17; Reply – ECF No. 19; Minute Entry – ECF No. 23. 

Case 3:20-cv-02141-LB Document 27 Filed 04/12/20 Page 12 of 20
ORDER – No. 20-cv-02141-LB 13

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Before Winter, the Ninth Circuit employed a “sliding scale” test that allowed a plaintiff to 

prove either “(1) a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury; or 

(2) [ ] serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply 

in its favor.” Walczak v. EPL Prolong, Inc., 198 F.3d 725, 731 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). 

In this continuum, “the greater the relative hardship to [a movant], the less probability of success 

must be shown.” Id. After Winter, the Ninth Circuit held that although the Supreme Court 

invalidated one aspect of the sliding scale approach,91 the “serious questions” prong of the sliding 

scale survived if the plaintiff satisfied the other elements for preliminary relief. Alliance for Wild 

Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131–32 (9th Cir. 2011). Thus, a preliminary injunction may 

be appropriate when a movant raises “serious questions going to the merits” of the case and the 

“balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor,” provided that the other elements for 

relief also are satisfied. Id. at 1134–35. 

ANALYSIS 

The government argues that (1) the petitioner cannot challenge the conditions of his 

confinement in a § 2241 petition seeking immediate release, (2) the petitioner did not exhaust his 

administrative remedies, (3) the petitioner lacks standing because any injury is speculative, and (4) 

the petitioner does not establish his entitlement to a TRO.92 These arguments are not persuasive. 

First, the court can address the petitioner’s challenges to the conditions of confinement in a 

§ 2241 petition. See, e.g., Ortuño, No. 3:20-cv-02064-MMC, Order – ECF No. 38 at 4 (N.D. Cal. 

Apr. 8, 2020); Bent v. Barr, No. 4:19-cv-06123-DMR, 2020 WL 1812850, at *2–3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 

9, 2020) (collecting cases); see Lopez-Marroquin v. Barr, No. 18-72922, Order (9th Cir. Apr. 9, 

2020) (construing immigration detainee’s COVID-19-related request for release under the All 

Writs Act as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and remanding to district court for consideration). 

91 The Supreme Court in Winter rejected the Ninth Circuit’s holding that “the ‘possibility’ of 

irreparable harm was sufficient, in some circumstances to justify a preliminary injunction.” Alliance 

for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). Instead, the Winter Court held that 

“plaintiffs must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in order to obtain a 

preliminary injunction.” Id. (emphasis in original). 

92 Opp’n – ECF No. 16 at 15–24. 

Case 3:20-cv-02141-LB Document 27 Filed 04/12/20 Page 13 of 20
ORDER – No. 20-cv-02141-LB 14

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Second, for habeas claims, exhaustion of administrative remedies is prudential, not 

jurisdictional. Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 988 (9th Cir. 2017). A court “may require 

prudential exhaustion when: (1) agency expertise makes agency considerations necessary to 

generate a proper record and reach a proper decision; (2) relaxation of the requirement would 

encourage the deliberate bypass of the administrative scheme; and (3) administrative review is 

likely to allow the agency to correct its own mistakes and to preclude the need for judicial 

review.” Id. (citing Puga v. Chertoff, 488 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 2007)). “Nonetheless, a court 

may waive the prudential exhaustion requirement if administrative remedies are inadequate or not 

efficacious, pursuant of administrative remedies would be a futile gesture, irreparable injury will 

result, or the administrative proceedings would be void.” Id. (citation and quotation omitted). 

Waiver of the prudential exhaustion requirement is appropriate here. Courts have entertained 

similar COVID-19 claims under habeas jurisdiction without mentioning prudential exhaustion. See 

Bent, 2020 WL 1812850 at *5–6 (collecting cases addressing habeas challenges). Also, the 

petitioner’s claim of entitlement to a bond hearing is based on the Fifth Amendment (as opposed 

to being grounded in a statutory entitlement), and thus exceeds the jurisdiction of the immigration 

courts and the BIA. See Hernandez v. Wolf, No. 5:20-cv-00617-TJH (KSx), Order – ECF No. 17 

at 10 (C.D. Cal. April 1, 2020) (waiving prudential exhaustion in a case with similar facts about 

the conditions of confinement). In addition, the petitioner suffers continued harm from the lack of 

a bond hearing, and given his health issues, irreparable injury results from his continued detention. 

See Jimenez v. Wolf, No. 5:19-cv-07996-NC, Order – ECF No. 25 at 3–4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2020) 

(waiving the prudential-exhaustion requirement for similar reasons). 

Third, the petitioner has standing. The risk of injury is not speculative. The petitioner 

submitted uncontested statements from public-health experts about the risks in jails, prisons, and 

detention centers. The risks are serious, even without a confirmed case of the virus in this 

detention center. See Bent, 2020 WL 1812850 at *3–4. The weight of authority supports the 

conclusion that detainees have standing. See, e.g., id. at *3 (“[g]iven the exponential spread of the 

virus, the ability of COVID-19 to spread through asymptomatic individuals[,] . . . effective relief 

for [petitioner] and other detainees may not be possible if they are forced to wait until their 

Case 3:20-cv-02141-LB Document 27 Filed 04/12/20 Page 14 of 20
ORDER – No. 20-cv-02141-LB 15

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

particular facility records a confirmed case”) (collecting cases); Ortuño, No. 3:20-cv-02064-

MMC, ECF No. 38 at 3 (where petitioners have not contracted COVID-19, standing is still met 

because of how rapidly the disease can spread in a confined space); see also Castillo v. Barr, No. 

5:20-cv-00605-TJH (AFMx), 2020 WL 1502864, at *4–5 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2020) (standing 

based on similar facts); see also Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, No. 18-71460, 2020 WL 1429877 (9th 

Cir. Mar. 24, 2020) (sua sponte ordering the petitioner released (and his removal stayed) pending 

final disposition by the court “[i]n light of the rapidly escalating public health crisis, which public 

health authorities predict will especially impact immigration detention centers.” 

* * * 

Fourth, as discussed in the next sections, the petitioner has satisfied the four TRO factors: (1) a 

likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm, (3) the balance of equities 

tips in favor of the petitioner, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. 

1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits 

The petitioner has two claims: (1) a substantive due-process claim under the Fifth Amendment 

that his conditions of confinement — in light of his heightened risk to COVID-19 — amount to 

punishment, and (2) a procedural due-process claim under the Fifth Amendment because he has 

been in ICE custody for a year and has not had a bond hearing.93

1.1 Substantive Due-Process Claim 

The petitioner has at least raised a serious question that his continued detention poses risks that 

exceed the government’s needs to ensure his presence at immigration proceedings, in violation of 

his substantive due-process rights under the Fifth Amendment. 

Because the petitioner is a civil detainee, his confinement is unconstitutional under the Fifth 

Amendment if his conditions of confinement “amount to punishment.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 

520, 535 (1979); Jonas v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 932 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Bell, 441 U.S. at 

535); accord Bent, 2020 WL 1812850 at *4; Ortuño, No. 3:20-cv-02064-MMC, Order – ECF No. 

93 Pet. – ECF No. 1 at 29–30 (¶¶ 83–90). 

Case 3:20-cv-02141-LB Document 27 Filed 04/12/20 Page 15 of 20
ORDER – No. 20-cv-02141-LB 16

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

38 at 4; Castillo, 2020 WL 1502864 at *3. “[P]unitive conditions may be shown (1) where the 

challenged restrictions are expressly intended to punish, or (2) where the challenged restrictions 

serve an alternative, non-punitive purpose but are nonetheless excessive in relation to the 

alternative purpose, . . . or are employed to achieve objectives that could be accomplished in so 

many alternative and less harsh methods.” Jonas, 393 F.3d at 932 (citations and quotation marks 

omitted). The government’s legitimate, non-punitive interests include ensuring a detainee’s 

presence at immigration proceedings. See id. (ensuring a detainee’s presence at trial); Ortuño, No. 

3:20-cv-02064-MMC, Order – ECF No. 38 at 4 (immigration proceedings). 

The issue here is whether, in light of the petitioner’s health, his detention is excessive in 

relation to the government’s interest in securing his presence at immigration proceedings. The 

evidence is undisputed that those with respiratory ailments are more susceptible to being infected 

by COVID-19, and the petitioner’s other diagnoses of chronic PTSD and depression compound 

his susceptibility. His risk is heightened because detainees at Yuba County jail live in close 

quarters, cannot practice social distancing, do not have masks, and do not have access to adequate 

disinfecting and cleaning supplies. 

Courts have found that similar conditions of confinement do not meet the constitutional 

standard for at-risk civil detainees. See, e.g., Ortuño, No. 3:20-cv-02064-MMC, Order – ECF No. 

38 at 6–7 (petitioners with diabetes and asthma; detainees are in close quarters, do not have masks, 

and cannot meaningfully practice social distancing); Bent, 2020 WL 1812850 at *2, 5–6 

(petitioner with asthma, hypertension, and pre-diabetes; inadequate soap, sanitizer, and cleaning 

supplies; resulting inability — despite efforts to encourage social distancing — to implement the 

CDC’s social-distancing guidelines; “public health experts make clear that an outbreak in confined 

spaces is potentially devastating”) (collecting cases); Castillo, 2020 WL 1502864, at *5 (detainees 

cannot maintain a six-foot distance and were “put into a situation where they are forced to touch 

surfaces touched by other detainees, such as with common sinks, toilets, and showers;” noted the 

risks of infection in immigration facilities, given the rotation of facility guards and staff); 

Hernandez, No. 5:20-cv-00617-TJH (KSx), Order – ECF No. 17 at 1, 5–6, 13 (petitioner with 

hypertension and multiple medical ailments; similar conditions of confinement); Basank v. 

Case 3:20-cv-02141-LB Document 27 Filed 04/12/20 Page 16 of 20
ORDER – No. 20-cv-02141-LB 17

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Decker, 20-cv-2518 (AT), 2020 WL 1481503, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26 2020) (inability to 

maintain social distancing to protect high-risk detainees shows a likelihood of success on the 

merits). 

In sum, the petitioner has at least shown a serious question that his continued detention 

exceeds the government’s legitimate interest in assuring his appearance in immigration 

proceedings. (The court addresses flight risk and danger to the community in section 2, below.) 

1.2 Procedural Due-Process Claim

Because he has not had a bond hearing (despite a year in ICE custody), the petitioner has 

shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his procedural due-process claim. 

A person who (like the petitioner) commits an aggravated felony may be detained in 

immigration proceedings, and the statutory scheme does not provide for a bond hearing or limit 

the length of detention. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(a), (c); Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830, 844, 

846 (2018) (“§ 1226(c) does not on its face limit the length of the detention it authorizes.”); 

Jimenez v. Wolf, No. 5:19-cv-7996-NC, 2020 WL 510347, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2020). Still, 

the Fifth Amendment “entitles aliens to the due process of law in deportation proceedings.” 

Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 523 (2003). When confinement continues past a year, courts are 

wary of continued custody absent a bond hearing. Gonzalez v. Bonnar, No. 3:18-cv-05321-JSC, 

2019 WL 330906, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2019) (collecting cases). Courts apply the three-factor 

balancing test in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), to evaluate the constitutionality of the 

detention. See, e.g., Jimenez, 2020 WL 510347 at *3 The three factors are (1) the private interest 

affected by the official action, (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the 

procedures used, and the probable value of any additional procedural safeguards, and (3) the 

government’s interest, “including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens 

that the additional or substitute procedural requirements would entail.” Mathews, 424 U.S. at 334–

35. 

First, there is no briefing schedule for the BIA appeal, and the uncontested timeline is 

anywhere from another six months to over a year. Given the petitioner’s detention for almost a 

year to date, and the likelihood of six months to a year in the future, the length of detention 

Case 3:20-cv-02141-LB Document 27 Filed 04/12/20 Page 17 of 20
ORDER – No. 20-cv-02141-LB 18

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

supports the conclusion that the petitioner’s private interest militates in favor of his claim that the 

denial of a bond hearing violates his procedural due-process rights under the Fifth Amendment. 

Gonzalez, 2019 WL 330906, at *5; Jimenez, 2020 WL 510347 at *3. 

Second, the other factors weigh in the petitioner’s favor. The probable value of a hearing 

(given the lack of any bond hearing) is high. And while there is an important government interest 

in securing the petitioner’s presence at any removal, the procedural due-process inquiry is about 

holding a bond hearing to assess whether the alien represents a flight risk or a danger to the 

community. Jimenez, 2020 WL 510347 at *3. 

2. Remaining TRO Elements 

The first element is irreparable harm. Continued detention and exposure to health-threatening 

conditions establish this element. Sessions, 872 F.3d at 994 (unconstitutional detention is 

irreparable harm); Bent, 2020 WL 1812850 at *6 (health issues establish irreparable harm to the 

petitioner’s health and safety); Ortuño, No. 3:20-02064-MMC, Order – ECF No. 38 at 8 (same). 

The second and third elements — the balance of equities and whether an injunction is in the 

public interest — merge. Bent, 2020 WL 1812850 at *7. The public’s interests are containing 

COVID-19, securing the petitioner’s appearance in his immigration proceedings, and preventing 

any danger to the community. Id.; Ortuño, No. 3:20-cv-02064-MMC, ECF No. 38 at 8. Under the 

circumstances here, the balance of equities and the public interest weigh in favor of release. 

The petitioner cannot meaningfully protect himself at Yuba County jail from the risks of his 

custody. Ortuño, No. 3:20-cv-02064-MMC, ECF No. 38 at 8; Bent, 2020 WL 1812850 at *7. 

Injunctive relief that prevents the further spreading of the virus and allows social distancing is in 

the public’s interest. Ortuño, No. 3:20-cv-02064-MMC, ECF No. 38 at 8 (“the public interest in 

promoting public health is served by efforts to contain the further spread of COVID-19, 

particularly in detention centers”); Bent, 2020 WL 1812850 at *7 (collecting cases); Castillo, 2020 

WL 1502864 at *6 (“[t]he public has a critical interest in preventing the further spread of the 

Case 3:20-cv-02141-LB Document 27 Filed 04/12/20 Page 18 of 20
ORDER – No. 20-cv-02141-LB 19

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

coronavirus”).94 By living with his wife, the petitioner will be able to protect himself and others 

through social distancing and the other hygienic measures that the CDC recommends. 

As to the risk of flight and danger to the community, the global pandemic is changing behavior 

and the way courts assess risk of flight and community safety. See Bent, 2020 WL 1812850 at *7 

(collecting cases). The petitioner has substantial ties to the community and every incentive to 

comply with the conditions of his supervision, given the alternative of custody and the attendant 

dangers to his health there. He has a parole officer and considerable community resources, as 

discussed above, which means he has the supervision necessary to secure his appearance at 

immigration proceedings and ensure the safety of the community. His underlying crime is serious. 

But the record of his confinement shows his substantial rehabilitation. The IJ also found the 

petitioner to be plausible, believable, candid, and consistent, and the psychological evaluation of 

the petitioner confirmed his good behavior, his low risk of violence, and the likelihood that he will 

function successfully, both socially and vocationally.95 Also, the court’s conditions of release 

address any concern about flight risk and safety of the community. 

In sum, given the petitioner’s combination of medical issues (chronic PTSD, depression, and 

latent tuberculosis), the COVID-19 pandemic, the conditions of confinement at Yuba County jail, 

the irreparable harm to the petitioner, the balance of equities, and the public interest, the court 

grants the TRO and, as relief, orders the petitioner’s release. 

CONCLUSION 

The court grants the petitioner’s motion for a TRO and orders his immediate release from 

custody. 

 The petitioner must reside with his wife in Oakland (at the address that she provided in her 

declaration), and he must shelter in place unless otherwise directed by his parole officer. What that 

94 Social distancing and sheltering in pace are the means to prevent the spread of the virus and not 

overwhelm the health-care system. Siobhan Roberts, Flattening the Coronavirus Curve (Mar. 27, 

2020), https://www.nytimes.com/article/flatten-curve-coronavirus.html. 

95 IJ Order, Ex. M to Morales Decl. – ECF No. 1-3 at 34; Shidlo Decl., Ex. G to Morales Decl. – ECF 

No. 102 at 39–53 (¶¶ 14–63). 

Case 3:20-cv-02141-LB Document 27 Filed 04/12/20 Page 19 of 20
ORDER – No. 20-cv-02141-LB 20

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

means is that pending further order of the court or the permission of his parole officer, the 

petitioner may leave home only to obtain medical care, meet with his parole officer (as directed), 

meet with his attorneys, appear at any immigration proceedings, or to obey any order issued by the 

immigration authorities. While on release, he must not violate any federal, state, or local law. The 

petitioner’s parole officer may impose additional conditions or modify these conditions — when it 

is appropriate to do so — to allow the petitioner to engage in gainful activity. His attorneys must 

file any modified conditions on the docket. 

Within two business days, the parties must confer about and submit a proposed schedule for 

the court’s issuing a preliminary injunction. Ordinarily, that would require the government to 

show cause why the court should not issue a preliminary injunction, and the petitioner to thereafter 

file a response, and the government to file a reply. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 12, 2020 

______________________________________ 

LAUREL BEELER 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:20-cv-02141-LB Document 27 Filed 04/12/20 Page 20 of 20