Habeas Petition (Patrick Gayle, Et, Al. v. ICE and Barr)

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 1 of 111
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
PATRICK GAYLE,
APARICIO P. JERONIMO,
TOLENTINO MARTINEZ-RIOS,
WILDER PEREZ LIMONES,
JAVIER ANTONIO ARIAS-MARTINEZ,
JUAN CARLOS ALFARO GARCIA, HEARING REQUESTED
FERMIN TEPETATE-MARTINEZ,
ABDUL JALLOH,
DARWYN YOVANNY NAVARRETE
SANCHEZ,
MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, Case No.: ________________
JOSE CHAVEZ,
LAZARO OCANA GUZMAN,
NAIM ARRAK,
AGANE WARSAME, VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT
HASSAN MOHAMED FARAH, OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COM-
RUBEN ORLANDO FLORES RAMOS, PLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
MOHAMED HASAN, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
ELISEO ANTONIO ZAMORA MENDOZA,
CESAR ARIEL MENDEZ ESCOBAR, CLASS ACTION
KROME SERVICE PROCESSING CENTER
and
ROSELINE OSTINE,
TAHIMI PEREZ,
FRANKLIN RAMOS GONZALEZ,
FRANCISCO RIVERO VALERON,
IRVIN MEDOZA SILIS,
GERARDO VARGAS,
DAIRON BARREDO SANCHEZ
GLADES COUNTY DETENTION CENTER
and
RENE JONATHAN ROSAS CARDENAS,

ADRIAN SOSA FLETES,
ALEJANDRO FERREIRA BORGES,
MAIKEL BETANCOURT,
GELBER SONTAY FUNEZ,
SIRVANILDO BIBIANO SOARES,
MAYKEL VALERA RAMIREZ,
ERVIN DAVID RODAS PEDRO
BROWARD TRANSITIONAL CENTER
Petitioners-Plaintiffs, on behalf of them-

selves and those similarly situated.
v.
MICHAEL W. MEADE,
Field Office Director, Miami Field Office,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
and
WILLIAM P. BARR,
United States Attorney General,
Respondents-Defendants.
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
PARTIES ........................................................................................................................................ 9
PROPOSED CLASS..................................................................................................................... 22
JURISDICTION AND VENUE ................................................................................................... 24
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES .............................................................. 28
A. COVID-19 is a global pandemic that poses a significant risk of death or serious

illness to Petitioners. ..........................................................................................................29
i. COVID-19 poses a grave risk to Petitioners because it is so easily transmitted. ...... 33
ii. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, all levels of government have directed
people to shelter in place, and practice social distancing and vigilant hygiene. ............... 37
B. All experts agree that COVID-19 will likely ravage jails, prisons, and detention
centers. ...............................................................................................................................40
C. The Center for Disease Control and the detention standards inform ICE’s duties to
people at Krome, Glades, and BTC. ..................................................................................45
D. Continued detention in the unique circumstances of the current pandemic poses a
dire and imminent threat to Petitioners and others at Krome, Glades, and BTC. ..............51
Krome Service Processing Center …………………………………..…………………54
Glades County Detention Center …………………………………..…………………..71
Broward Transitional Center ………………………………….….…………………….79
ICE's Alternatives to Detention Program ………………………..……………………..87
LEGAL FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................................. 89
A. Due Process Right to Reasonably Safe Non-Punitive Civil Detention..............................89

B. The Accardi Doctrine .........................................................................................................92
CAUSES OF ACTION ................................................................................................................. 94
COUNT ONE - ACCARDI DOCTRINE (FIFTH AMENDMENT/APA) – VIOLATION OF
DETENTION STANDARDS ....................................................................................................... 94
COUNT TWO - FIFTH AMENDMENT – VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO................................ 100
i
REASONABLE SAFETY .......................................................................................................... 100
COUNT THREE - FIFTH AMENDMENT – STATE-CREATED DANGER.......................... 101
PRAYER FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................................. 104
PETITIONER-PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFICATION........................................................................ 107
ii
INTRODUCTION
1. Petitioners-Plaintiffs (hereafter “Petitioners”) are women and men detained by
Respondents-Defendants in civil immigration detention at three Florida detention centers within
the jurisdiction of the Miami Field Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). All
Petitioners are at imminent risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) as a re-
sult of their inability to follow Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) guidelines and state and local
directives due to their continued detention. This action challenges the refusal of Respondents to
release Petitioners, and others in the class they represent, so that they can shelter in place, follow
CDC guidelines, and reduce their likelihood of infection and illness.
2. Federal judges across the country have ordered the urgent release of noncitizens,
explaining the pressing health risks created by detaining groups of people at this time.1
3. On April 8, 2020, U.S. District Court Judge William G. Young ordered ICE to re-
lease detained individuals because of the COVID-19 threat: “The situation is urgent and unprece-
1
See, e.g., Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 2020 WL 1429877 (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2020); Martin
Munoz v. Wolf, Case No. 20-cv-00625-TJH-SHK (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2020), ECF No. 14; Robles
Rodriguez v. Wolf, 20-cv-00627-TJH-GJS (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2020), ECF No. 37; Hernandez v.
Wolf, CV 20-60017-TJH (KSx)(C.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2020), ECF No. 17; Arana v. Barr, 2020 WL
1502039 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2020); Xuyue Zhang v. Barr, 2020 WL 1502607 (C.D. Cal. March
27, 2020); Basank v. Decker, 2020 WL 1481503 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2020); Castillo v. Barr,
2020 WL 1502864 (C.D. Cal. March 27, 2020); Thakker v. Doll, No. 1:20-cv-00480-JEJ (M.D.
Pa. Mar. 31, 2020), ECF No. 47; Coronel v. Decker, 2020 WL 1487274 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27,
2020); Fraihat v. Wolf, No. ED CV 20-00590 TJH (KSx) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2020); Calderon
Jimenez v. Wolf, No. 18 Civ. 10225 (D. Mass. Mar. 26, 2020), ECF No. 507; United States v.
Stephens, 2020 WL 1295155, at *2 (S.D. N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020); Matter of Extradition of Toledo
Manrique, 2020 WL 1307109, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2020).
1
dented, and . . . a reduction in the number of people who are held in custody is necessary.” Mem-
orandum and Order at 28, Savino v. Souza, Case No. 1:20-cv-10617-WGY (D. Mass. Apr. 8,
2020) (DE 64) (copy at Appx. I, Exh. A, 1-29).
4. The spread of COVID-19 in ICE detention in Florida has been marked by secrecy
and cover-up.
5. As early as March 27, 2020, local attorneys reported to their voluntary bar associ-
ation that their “clients have indicated there are sick individuals in detention locally, quarantined
individuals, and detainees wearing protective gear.” (Appx I, Exh. J, at 30-32, 30 ¶1.). After a
bar association liaison member asked ICE if there were detained individuals who had tested posi-
tive, she reported back to membership that “there has been NO CONFIRMATION by ICE of de-
tainees at BTC or Krome who have tested positive for COVID-19" and referred members to
ICE’s website where it reports confirmed positive cases. (Id.) (emphasis in original).
6. On Monday, April 6, 2020, the Miami Herald reported that two officers working
at Krome Service Processing Center in Miami had tested positive for COVID-19, and many oth-
ers were awaiting results from their tests. (Appx I, Exh. C, at 33-38.)
7. On that same day, ICE told the Herald that no detained individuals in Florida had
tested positive. (Appx I, Exh. D, at 39-46, 40-41) (“For weeks—and as recently as Monday—US
Immigration and Customs Enforcement has repeatedly told the Herald that no detainees in their
custody in Florida have tested positive for the virus.”).
8. ICE’s statement was false. On April 7, the Herald ran a second story explaining
that a detained individual from Krome had tested positive. A federal official with first-hand
knowledge had told the Herald: “While that is true that no detainee currently at the detention
2
center tested positive for COVID-19, it’s also not completely accurate as testing is not conducted
on site and detainees are sent to an off-site hospital to be tested.” (Appx I, Exh. D, at 41.)
9. ICE now admits that there are least two detained individuals in Miami who have
tested positive for COVID-19, one currently at Krome, and a second at a local hospital in Mi-
ami.2
10. ICE refuses to disclose whether third-party contractors test positive for COVID-
19, providing them a “loophole” to reporting the actual number of COVID-19 cases among its
employees in detention centers. Third-party contractors comprise a majority of employees in de-
tention centers. (Appx I, Exh. D, at 35-36.)
11. COVID-19 threatens every woman and man detained at Krome Service Pro-
cessing Center (“Krome”), Glades County Detention Center (“Glades”), and Broward Transi-
tional Center (“BTC”). A chart of the reported COVID-19 cases of people in ICE detention de-
picts an alarming steep curve. (Appx I, Exh. E, at 47); see also Declaration of Dr. Joseph Shin,
MD, MSc dated April 13, 2020 (“Shin Decl.”) ¶¶39-41(Exh. 2).
12. Although Krome, Glades, and BTC are run by private prison groups, independent
contractors, and a county, these groups have no authority to release a person. Only the federal
government Respondents can provide the remedy requested by this action.
13. Each of the three detention centers either has confirmed cases of the virus or has
groups of individuals herded together in “cohort quarantine” because they have been exposed.
Rather than mitigate the risk of transmission, these cohort quarantines drastically increase the
2
ICE Guidance on COVID-19, (last updated Apr. 10, 2020, 5:35 PM), available at:
https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus.
3
possibility of transmission, infection, and facility-wide outbreak by grouping together people
who have already been exposed to the virus. See Shin Decl. ¶40 (Exh. 2) (“The analysis that I
provide above regarding screening, ‘cohorting’ and social distancing is not theoretical. In fact,
there are a growing number of facilities throughout the country where the rate of infection is
growing exponentially amongst both people detained as well as staff. In these settings, hundreds,
and potentially thousands of people will become infected, and many will die.”); Greer Decl., ¶30
(Exh. 3).
14. Under CDC Guidelines, which detention centers are required to follow, people
exposed to COVID-19 should be put in individual, not group, quarantine: “Facilities should
make every possible effort to quarantine close contacts of COVID-19 cases individually.” CDC
Interim Guidance (Appx I, Exh. F, at 66) (emphasis added). Cohort quarantine “should only be
practiced if there are no other available options.” (Id.) (emphasis added). As the CDC explains,
“[c]ohorting multiple quarantined close contacts of a COVID-19 case could transmit COVID-19
from those who are infected to those who are uninfected.” (Id.)
15. “Facilities without onsite healthcare capacity, or without sufficient space to imple-
ment effective quarantine, should coordinate with local public health officials to ensure that close
contacts of COVID-19 cases will be effectively quarantined and medically monitored.” (Appx I,
Exh. F, at 66) (emphasis added). Additionally, “[f]acilities with limited onsite medical isolation,
quarantine, and/or healthcare services should coordinate closely with state, local, tribal, and/or
territorial health departments when they encounter a confirmed or suspected case, in order to en-
sure effective medical isolation or quarantine, necessary medical evaluation and care, and medi-
cal transfer if needed.” (Appx I, Exh. F, at 62.)
4
16. Respondents are defying CDC Guidelines by refusing to do the one thing they
could to do comply with those guidelines – releasing individuals during the pandemic. Instead
respondents are affirmatively putting detained people at risk by confining them in close sleeping,
eating, and living quarters at Krome, Glades, and BTC. Because Respondents could release Peti-
tioners and those similarly situated, “cohort quarantine” is not the only “available option.” As
Dr. Shin warns “[t]here is no way for immigration detention facilities to comply with CDC
guidelines on social distancing and quarantining unless Respondents release detained men and
women on a large scale. When release from a detained setting is an option and there is lack of
testing ability and an inability to employ social distancing, it is my professional opinion that fail-
ure to release during the COVID-19 pandemic is a violation of the CDC guidelines and will re-
sult in continued and wide-spread infection.” Shin Decl., ¶39 (Exh. 2).
17. There is currently no way for Krome, Glades, and BTC to comply with CDC
guidelines on social distancing and quarantining. Each facility holds individuals in close proxim-
ity. People are less than six feet away from each other when they sleep, eat, and use common ar-
eas. It is impossible for Petitioners to protect themselves from infection through social distancing
and vigilant hygiene—the only known mitigation measures.
18. ICE continues to arrest people and send them to Krome, Glades, and BTC.
19. ICE continues to issue detainers to local jails, directing them to hold people
whose criminal custody has come to an end. ICE then transports these people to Krome, Glades,
and BTC, increasing their already large populations.
5
20. Under these circumstances, COVID-19 will “spread like wildfire,” according to a
former high-level ICE official. (Appx I, Exh. G, at 74-81, 75-76 ¶6) (declaration of John Sand-
weg, Former Acting Director of ICE).3 The World Health Organization, recognizing the threat
to detained people, has urged that “[e]nhanced consideration should be given to resorting to non-
custodial measures at all stages of the administration of criminal justice, including at the pre-
trial, trial and sentencing as well as post-sentencing stages.” (Appx I, Exh. H, at 82-121, 92)
(WHO Interim Guidance) (emphasis added). This guideline applies to “immigration detention
settings” as well. (Id., at 95 §5.)
21. Respondents cannot control the spread of COVID-19 without widespread testing.
See Shin Decl., ¶¶ 28, 33 and 39 (Exh. 2). (“The lack of wide-spread testing, transparency and
data in communities in the US and all across the world allowed undetected spread in the commu-
nity as well as within facilities and institutions that fueled the current pandemic.”). However, as
ICE has admitted through Officer in Charge at Krome, they are not testing at the facilities. (Appx
I, Exh. I, at 122-25, 123 ¶ 8-9) (noting medical screening that does not include testing or testing
upon presentation of symptoms). Tests typically only occur if a person is brought to the hospital.
Periodic testing of already symptomatic people does little to prevent further infections. As Dr.
Shin explains, "three studies that support the likelihood that asymptomatic or mildly sympto-
matic individuals can spread the infection. These studies took place in China, Japan and one
3
See also Camilo Montoya-Galvez, CBS News, “Powder kegs”: Calls grow for ICE to re-
lease immigrants to avoid coronavirus outbreak (last updated Mar. 19, 2020),
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-ice-release-immigrants-detention-outbreak/.
6
study included passengers from the Diamond Princess. These studies found that in COVID in-
fected persons, 59%, 31% and 18%; respectively, were asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic.”
See Shin Decl., ¶24 (Exh. 2).
22. Detainee reports from all three facilities document that social distancing is impos-
sible, people exhibiting flu-like symptoms are housed in the general population, and maintaining
personal hygiene is constrained by the crowded facilities and lack of cleaning supplies. At BTC
and Glades, men and women must ration soap weekly—two smalls bottles at BTC per person,
and one 4-ounce bottle at Glades. (Appx I, Exh. J, at 126-30) (Declaration of Francis L. Conlin,
Friends of Miami-Dade Detainees).
23. Detained individuals have not been trained on how to use hygiene and social dis-
tancing to try and reduce the spread of COVID-19. Detained individuals have no access to per-
sonal protective equipment (“PPE”), not even through commissary. Only some facility staff use
PPE.
24. COVID-19 infections at Krome, Glades, and BTC affect the larger community, as
many people travel in and out of these facilities, including staff and vendors. As of April 12,
2020, there were 10,007 confirmed cases of COVID-19 between Miami-Dade County, Broward
County, and Glades County.4 These numbers amount to over half of the total number of positive
cases in the entire state of Florida, and are growing exponentially each passing day. 5
4
What you need to know now about COVID-19 in Florida, Florida Health (last updated Apr.
12, 2020, 6:44 PM), https://floridahealthcovid19.gov/.
5
As of April 12, 2020, there were 19, 895 positive cases of COVID-19 in the state of Florida.
Id.
7
25. Throughout the world, the COVID-19 pandemic is infecting and killing women,
men, and children. The United States has now surpassed the rest of the world in both the number
of confirmed cases and the highest number of deaths. Over 22, 000 Americans have died.6 Ex-
perts estimated that, after the pandemic runs its course, the coronavirus will have infected be-
tween 160 and 214 million people and taken the lives of up to 1.7 million people in the United
States alone.7
26. There is no vaccine against COVID-19 and no known cure. Currently, the only
recognized strategies to reduce the risk of exposure to COVID-19 are social distancing, wide-
spread testing, and improved hygiene, which have led to unprecedented public health measures
around the world.
27. Given this reality, the President has declared a national emergency. Every state in
the Union and the District of Columbia have declared states of emergency.8 Numerous states and
localities—including Florida and many of its cities and counties—have issued “shelter-in-place”
orders requiring residents to stay in their homes. School mandated closures are in effect in all
fifty states. These measures all seek to reduce the spread of the virus and, ultimately, save lives.
6
Elena Renken and Daniel Wood, Map: Tracking The Spread of The Coronavirus In The
U.S., NPR (Apr. 12, 2020, 8:15 PM), https://www.npr.org/sections/health-
shots/2020/03/16/816707182/map-tracking-the-spread-of-the-coronavirus-in-the-u-s.
7
Sheri Fink, Worst-Case Estimates for U.S. Coronavirus Deaths, The New York Times (last
updated Marc. 18, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/us/coronavirus-deaths-esti-
mate.html
8
State Data and Policy Actions to Address Coronavirus, KFF (Apr. 10, 2020),
https://www.kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/state-data-and-policy-actions-to-address-corona-
virus.
8
28. Unfortunately, ICE is preventing people at Krome, Glades, and BTC from com-
plying with sheltering in place protocols and CDC guidelines. Despite warnings from medical
and public health professionals that releasing detained immigrants is the only viable option to
comply with social distancing, individual quarantine, and other CDC requirements and local and
state orders, the agency has generally refused to release in any meaningful way, in the absence of
court intervention.
29. Petitioners bring this action to remedy ICE’s violation of their constitutional
rights and protect themselves—as well as others in immigration detention at Krome, BTC, and
Glades—from the imminent harm that will result from their continued detention.
PARTIES
30. Petitioner PATRICK GAYLE is a citizen of Jamaica and lawful permanent resi-
dent of the United States who is detained at Krome. He has been in ICE custody since March 12,
2020. He was exposed to a person in the facility who was coughing and sick. Krome staff have
put him in a cohort quarantine with 120 other detained individuals who have been exposed to the
virus. It is impossible for him to engage in social distancing, and he is afraid of contracting
COVID-19. Within the last week, he also developed a cough, but has not been tested for
COVID-19. If released, he has two places to stay that will minimize the possibility of contracting
the virus. He plans to stay with his father in Garden City, Georgia or with his girlfriend in Day-
tona, Florida. At both places, he will be able to follow CDC, state, and local guidelines by shel-
tering in place, practicing social distancing, and maintaining good hygiene.
9
31. Petitioner APARICIO P. JERONIMO is a citizen of Guatemala who is detained
at Krome. He has been in ICE custody since March 2020. He is exhibiting symptoms consistent
with COVID-19 and is housed in a room with around 70 other detained individuals, many of
whom are exhibiting flu like symptoms as well. He is concerned that tests for COVID-19 are not
being provided to sick individuals in detention. If released, he will stay with a friend where he
can practice safe distancing and take care of himself.
32. Petitioner RENE JONATHAN ROSAS CARDENAS is a citizen of Cuba who
is detained at the BTC and eligible for adjustment under the Cuban Adjustment Act. He has been
in ICE custody since January 9, 2019. He is worried that the crowded conditions of having to
sleep in bunkbeds less than a meter away from each other, and the lack of soap to wash his
throughout the day will result in him contracting COVID-19. If released, he will stay with his
lifelong friend in Miami, Florida, where he will have space to stay isolated and practice social
distancing.
33. Petitioner ROSELINE OSTINE is a citizen of Haiti who is detained at Glades.
She suffers from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and epilepsy. She is extremely worried
about the high risk of death if exposed to COVID-19 because of her medical condition, and
stress exacerbates her epileptic symptoms. She is already experiencing cold like symptoms.
Roseline is also worried because most officers still do not wear masks when around detained in-
dividuals and they are not provided with sufficient sanitary products to help them stop the spread
of disease. If released, she will live with her son in Miami, Florida, where she will be able to
self-quarantine and practice social distancing.
10
34. Petitioner TOLENTINO MARTINEZ-RIOS is a citizen of Mexico who is de-
tained at Krome Service Processing Center. He has been in ICE custody since March 5, 2020. He
is concerned about contracting COVID-19 because he is aware that at least one detained person
at Krome has tested positive. Because Mr. Martinez-Rios is forced in live with a large group of
people in close sleeping, eating and living quarters, it is impossible for him to practice social dis-
tancing. If released, he can return to where he lived before detention with Meyling Osorio. His
room is separated from the rest of the members of the household, so he could self-isolate and
practice safe social distancing.
35. Petitioner ADRIAN SOSA FLETES is a citizen of Cuba who is detained at
Broward Transitional Center. He has been in ICE custody since March 9, 2019 and is eligible for
adjustment under the Cuban Adjustment Act. He suffers from chronic pain and discomfort on his
throat due to being a smoker. He is worried because detained individuals are not given masks or
gloves, are not able to social distance, and are not given much soap. He is concerned that he will
contract COVID-19 because he has heard of detained people being infected by it and new de-
tained people have been transferred to BTC. If he is released, he will live with his cousin in Or-
lando, Florida.
36. Petitioner WILDER PEREZ LIMONES is a citizen of Mexico who is detained
at Krome Service Processing Center. He has been in ICE custody since March 2020. He is suf-
fering from flu-like symptoms and chest pain, and has been put into a quarantine with 59 men in
one unit. He is worried that he has been exposed to COVID-19, because a staff person told him
that someone had tested positive before he was placed into a quarantine, and a lot of the men in
11
his unit are very sick. If released, he has two places to stay in Lake Worth, with his partner and
children and with his brother, where he can practice social distancing and self-quarantine.
37. Petitioner JAVIER ANTONIO ARIAS-MARTINEZ is a citizen of the Domini-
can Republic and lawful permanent resident of the United States who is detained by ICE at
Krome Service Processing Center. He has been in ICE custody since on or around January 6,
2020. He is HIV positive and has a history of respiratory issues. He is in a pod of about 70 men,
and more men are being brought into the pod regularly, so he is worried about the impossibility
of social distancing. Many men in the pod are sick, and there is a lack of sanitation supplies. He
is worried about the complications his HIV would have if he were to contract COVID-19, espe-
cially being in such close proximity to sick men. If released, he can live with his son and the
mother of his son in Orlando, Florida where he would be able to practice safe social distancing
and self-isolate.
38. Petitioner ALEJANDRO FERREIRA BORGES is a citizen of Cuba who is de-
tained at Broward Transitional Center. He will be eligible for a green card this month under The
Cuban Adjustment Act. He has been in ICE custody since April 26, 2019. He suffers from high
blood pressure and asthma, that requires him to use his inhaler four to five times a day. He is
afraid of what will happen if he contracts COVID-19 and falls severely ill because he has seen
that detained individuals usually do not receive medical attention until it is an emergency and he
has seen several people coughing, who have not been placed in quarantine. If he is released, he
will live with his friend in Palm Beach, Florida, where he was living prior to being detained.
39. Petitioner TAHIMI PEREZ is a lawful permanent resident of the United States
who is detained at Glades County Detention Center since January 2020. Tahimi suffers from
12
asthma and has a history of upper respiratory issues that require hospitalization. She is worried
about contracting COVID-19, which would be fatal due to her poor health. The cells and pods
are so small Tahimi cannot practice social distancing, and many of the people in her pod are sick.
If released from detention, she would live with her partner in Hialeah, Florida where she would
be able to self-quarantine and practice social distancing.
40. Petitioner FRANKLIN RAMON GONZALEZ is a national of the Dominican
Republic who has been detained at Glades County Detention Center since February 24, 2020. He
had open heart surgery on December 23, 2019. He suffers from coronary artery disease, diastolic
heart failure, COPD, diabetes, asthma, obesity, and other serious health conditions. Due to these
existing health issues, in particular those related to his recent heart surgery, he is at a high risk
for fatal complications if he were to contract COVID-19. His cellmates are very sick, and there is
no way to socially distance in his Pod or cell because there is not enough room. If released, he
will live with his brother in Kissimmee, Florida where he will be able to practice social distanc-
ing.
41. Petitioner MAIKEL BETANCOURT is a citizen of Cuba who is detained at
Broward Transitional Center and eligible for adjustment under the Cuban Adjustment Act. He
has been in ICE custody since March 26, 2020. He suffers from hypertension, high blood pres-
sure, high cholesterol, a thyroid problem and a depressed immune system. His weakened im-
mune system will make him more vulnerable to severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-
19. He is worried because most of the time it is impossible for him to social distance. If released,
he with his aunt in New Jersey, where she has a separate room for him to self-isolate.
13
42. Petitioner FRANCISCO RIVERO VALERON is a lawful permanent resident of
the United States who is detained by ICE at Glades County Detention Center. He has been in
ICE custody since January 26, 2020. He suffers from hypertension, mixed hyperlipidemia, trem-
ors, gastro-esophageal reflux with esophagitis, anxiety, and depression. He is prescribed Losar-
tan and Prilosec for his medical conditions. As a consequence of his health conditions, he is at
high risk for severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. There are 96 detainees in his pod,
and all 96 men have to share one toilet. If released, he will live with his wife in Naples, Florida
where he will follow all recommendations from the CDC.
43. Petitioner GELBER SONTAY FUNEZ Is a citizen of Guatemala who is de-
tained by ICE at Broward Transitional Center. He has been in ICE custody since approximately
October 28, 2019. He suffers from anxiety and depression and has difficulty breathing and sleep-
ing. There have been groups of men transferred into BTC, and he is unsure if they have been
tested for COVID-19. He is concerned because he has been feeling sick, but he has not been
tested for COVID-19 or had his temperature taken. If he is released, he will live with his wife or
his sponsor in Lehigh Acres, Florida.
44. Petitioner JUAN CARLOS ALFARO GARCIA is a citizen of Mexico and asy-
lum seeker who is detained by ICE at Krome Service Processing Center. He has been in ICE cus-
tody since on or around March 6, 2020. He suffers from asthma, which puts him at high risk for
severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. He is worried because many men in his cell
have fevers and coughs. When they are in their unit, it is impossible to maintain social distance.
If released, he would be able to stay with his wife in Florida where he would be able to practice
social distancing.
14
45. Petitioner FERMIN TEPETATE-MARTINEZ is a citizen of Mexico who is de-
tained by ICE at Krome Service Processing Center. He has been in ICE custody since on or
around March 21, 2020. He is afraid that being unable to stay six feet apart from people and the
lack of soap and hand sanitizer to wash his hands throughout the day, will put him at risk of con-
tracting of COVID-19. If released, he would be able to stay with his fiancé and her family in
Clearwater, Florida, where there is a room available for him to self-quarantine and isolate, per
the CDC guidelines.
46. Petitioner IRVIN MENDOZA SILIS is a citizen of Mexico who is detained by
ICE at Glades County Detention Center. He has been in ICE custody since March 6, 2020. He
suffers from asthma, including monthly asthma bronchospasm episodes. As a consequence of his
health conditions, he is at high risk for severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. There
are not sufficient hygiene products, and it is impossible to maintain a safe social distance because
there are six men in each cell. If released, Irvin would live with his mother and wife in Largo,
Florida.
47. Petitioner GERARDO VARGAS is a 57-year-old legal permanent resident of the
United States who is detained by ICE at Glades County Detention Center. He has been in ICE
custody since on or around December 10, 2019. He suffers from diabetes, an underlying condi-
tion that makes him susceptible to fatal complications if he were to become sick with COVID-
19. The unit is crowded with 96 men, and a lot of new detained individuals are being brought in.
It is impossible to maintain six feet of distance, and there is no access to masks, gloves, or hand
sanitizer. If released, Gerardo will live with his family in Wachula, Florida where he will be able
to follow social distancing guidelines.
15
48. Petitioner SIRVANILDO BIBIANO SOARES is a citizen of Brazil who is de-
tained by ICE at Broward Transitional Center. He has been in ICE custody since March 6, 2020.
He suffers from gastroesophageal reflux, a pancreatic condition, and recently suffered from
pneumonia. He is concerned that he is at high risk of severe illness or death if he is exposed to
COVID-19. He is concerned because he has been experiencing flu like symptoms, including con-
gestion and coughing, and he has seen a high number of detained people transferred to the hospi-
tal.
49. Petitioner ABDUL JALLOH is a citizen of Sierra Leone and legal permanent
resident of the United States who is detained by ICE at Krome Service Processing Center. He has
been in ICE custody since November 28, 2018. He suffers from Major Depression Disorder, hal-
lucinations, Paranoia and Delusion Disorder, traumatic brain injury, alcohol abuse and with-
drawal, borderline personality disorder, schizophrenia and respiratory issues. As a consequence
of his weakened lungs, he is at high risk for severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. He
is concerned because men in his unit are coughing, and there are not proper precautions being
taken to protect the medically vulnerable. If released, he would be able to live with his uncle in
Virginia, who is a nurse and who would be able to provide him with the proper medical attention
and education.
50. Petitioner DARWYN YOVANNY NAVARRETE SANCHEZ is a citizen of
Honduras who is detained at Krome Service Processing Center. He has been in ICE custody
since March 19, 2020. He is a long-time smoker and suffers from recurring headaches. He is
worried because smokers are at risk for lung damage, leading to fatal complications with
COVID-19. His concerns are exacerbated by the lack of ability to social distance, and the lack of
16
personal protective equipment or sanitary supplies in the facility. If released, he would be able to
stay with his girlfriend in Miami, Florida where he would be able to self-isolate and self-quaran-
tine.
51. Petitioner MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN is a citizen of Pakistan who is detained
at Krome Service Processing Center. He has been in ICE custody since December 10, 2019. He
suffers from diabetes, high blood pressure and has a history of treatment for hypertension, hyper-
cholesterolemia, obesity, back and spinal pain, and high cholesterol. As a consequence of his
health conditions, he is at high risk for severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. He is
worried because there are approximately 45 other detained individuals housed with him, and it
impossible for them to remain six feet apart. If released, he would go back home and live with
his wife and children in Tamarac, Florida.
52. Petitioner JOSE CHAVEZ is a citizen of Honduras who is detained at Krome
Service Processing Center. He has been in ICE custody since July 19, 2019. He suffers from
asthma and nephrolithiasis. He has a history of being hospitalized for chest pains due to his poor
health. As a consequence of his weak immune system and lungs, he is at high risk for severe ill-
ness or death if he contracts COVID-19. Jose is in a unit with 41 men, and they are not able to
socially distance due to the close quarters in which they are kept. If released he would be able to
live with his spouse and children in Davie, Florida where he would be able to practice social dis-
tancing and self-quarantine.
53. Petitioner DAIRON BARREDO SANCHEZ is a citizen of Cuba who is de-
tained at Glades County Detention Center and eligible for adjustment under the Cuban Adjust-
ment Act. He has been in ICE custody since February 13, 2020. Darion suffers from asthma and
17
is worried about fatal COVID-19 exposure in detention where other detained individuals are sick
and social distancing is impossible. He and his cellmates are very sick with coughs, some so bad
they are coughing up blood. When he went to see the doctor, his temperature was not taken de-
spite his bad symptoms. There are over 90 men in the living unit, and it is impossible to maintain
six feet of distance away from other detained individuals. If released, he will live with his partner
and child in Orlando, Florida where he would be able to practice safe social distancing and self-
quarantine.
54. Petitioner MAYKEL VALERA RAMIREZ is a citizen of Cuba who is detained
at Broward Transitional Center. He has been in ICE custody since December 2019. He suffers
from hypertension and is prescribed blood pressure medication for his condition. A few weeks
ago, he was sick with a bad cough, but he was never placed in isolation or tested for COVID-19.
He is worried about contracting COVID-19 because other detained individuals prepare the food
and clean the facility, and they do not wear masks, and sometimes gloves, while cleaning. He is
concerned that his health conditions, coupled with the fact that he cannot social distance while
detained, puts him at a higher risk of contracting COVID-19. If he is released from detention, he
will live with his cousin in Pasco, Washington.
55. Petitioner LAZARO OCANA GUZMAN is a citizen of Mexico who is detained
at Krome Service Processing Center. He has been in ICE custody since March 20, 2020. He suf-
fers from tonsillitis, which is exacerbated to the point of being unable to speak when sick. He
was in a cohort quarantine with 60 men until recently, but even in the cohort he was not able to
maintain a safe social distance from the rest of the men. He is concerned about contracting
18
COVID-19 at Krome, particularly in view of his chronic illness. If released, he would be able to
live with his brother in Largo, Florida where he could self-quarantine.
56. Petitioner NAIM ARRAK is a citizen of Tunisia who is detained at Krome Ser-
vice Processing Center. He has been in ICE custody since July 2, 2019. He suffers from major
depressive disorder and is housed in the Behavioral Housing Unit. He is very concerned because
he was told three officers tested positive, and he thinks one of those officers has still been work-
ing in the facility. Also, staff are not using the appropriate personal protective equipment and are
still doing three shake downs of their bunks a day, touching all of the men's personal belongings.
If released, he can stay with his adoptive citizen parents in Virginia where he will have his own
room to isolate and social distance.
57. Petitioner AGANE WARSAME is a citizen of Somalia who is detained at Krome
Service Processing Center. He has been in ICE custody since August 1, 2017. He suffers from
anxiety and depression and was a chronic smoker before placed in ICE custody. He is housed in
the Behavioral Housing Unit. He is terrified that he will contract COVID-19 because the de-
tained individuals within the Behavioral Housing Unit are not being isolated, and a detainee who
used to be housed in the unit is now isolated at a hospital. He is within six feet of another person
at all times within the BHU. If released from detention, he will return to live with his wife in
Hutchinson, Minnesota.
58. Petitioner HASSAN MOHAMED FARAH is a citizen of Somalia who is de-
tained at Krome Service Processing Center. He has been in ICE custody since October 16, 2017.
He suffers from PTSD, diabetes, kidney stones, a hernia, high cholesterol and high blood pres-
sure. He is housed in the Behavioral Housing Unit. Some of the men in his unit are exhibiting flu
19
like symptoms, and he is worried because he was told that they ran out of hand sanitizer and
there is no more soap. Commissary is now closed. He is also concerned because many guards
only wear personal protective equipment when they are being watched by supervisors, otherwise
they do not use the equipment because they say do not like using it. When he got blood taken, he
was put in a cell with multiple sick men and the doctor was coughing and sneezing. If released,
he will live with his wife and children in Minnesota where he will follow the Minnesota stay at
home order and stay in isolation.
59. Petitioner RUBEN ORLANDO FLORES RAMOS is a 40-year old citizen of
Honduras who is detained at Krome Service Processing Center. He has been in ICE custody
since March 9, 2020. He suffers from hypertension and high blood pressure, and since his time in
Krome his blood pressure has been extremely high, necessitating increased medication. He has
also been having difficulty breathing. He is in a quarantine cohort unit and is unable to safely
distance himself from the rest of the men. Due to a lack of showers, the men are not able to
shower regularly. Men started complaining about conditions, and the officers started beating
them. Ruben thinks his ribs are broken, and there was a lot of blood on the floors for days. Some
men aren’t allowed to use the phone to contact their attorneys because they have reported the
guards conduct. If released, he would live with his family in New Orleans, Louisiana where he
could take care of himself and separate himself from others.
60. Petitioner MOHAMED HASAN is a citizen of Somalia who is detained at
Krome Service Processing Center. He has been in ICE custody since August 2017. He suffers
from post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder and is housed in the Behav-
ioral Housing Unit. The Krome staff and nurses are telling him that there are people in Krome
20
who are very sick. They are forced to go to recreation where it is even more impossible to social
distance. He is afraid of contracting COVID-19 because social distancing is impossible in the
unit, which houses detained individuals in a small space. If he is released from detention, he can
stay with his Untied States Citizen sister in Ohio, a U.S. citizen, where he will be able to practice
social distancing.
61. Petitioner ELISEO ANTONIO ZAMORA MENDOZA is a 53-year old citizen
of Nicaragua who is detained at Krome Service Processing Center. He has been in ICE custody
since March 15, 2020. He has suffered from pneumonia in the past and was a smoker prior to be-
ing in ICE custody. He is afraid of the high risk of severe illness or death if he is exposed to
COVID-19 because of his health conditions and age. There are currently about 61 men in his liv-
ing unit, where beds are about three feet apart. If released, he will return home to live with his
wife in Hialeah, Florida.
62. Petitioner CESAR ARIEL MENDEZ ESCOBAR is a citizen of Guatemala who
has been detained as Krome Service Processing Center since mid-March 2020. He suffers from
high cholesterol and high triglycerides, which affect heart health. He is worried that his precari-
ous health condition will make him more vulnerable to severe illness or death if he contracts
COVID-19. It is impossible for him to practice social distancing because there are too many de-
tained individuals in too small of a space. He is worried because there haven’t been increases in
cleaning measures, detained people aren’t allowed to wear masks, and they aren’t given gloves.
If released, he can stay with his partner and children in Fort Piere, Florida.
63. Petitioner ERVIN DAVID RODAS PEDRO is a citizen of Guatemala who has
been detained at Broward Transitional Center since early March 2020. He suffers from asthma
21
and uses an inhaler to assist with breathing difficulties. Because of his underlying medical condi-
tion, he is at risk for fatal complications if he were to contract COVID-19. He is concerned be-
cause he is unable to social distance, especially during meals where everyone is only about three
feet apart. If released, he will return home and live with his wife and follow CDC recommenda-
tions.
64. Respondent MICHAEL W. MEADE is the Field Office Director for the ICE Mi-
ami Field Office. The ICE Miami Field Office has complete control over the admission and re-
lease of noncitizens detained at Krome, BTC, and Glades. Respondent Meade is the immediate
and legal custodian of Petitioners. He is sued in his official capacity.
65. Respondent WILLIAM P. BARR is the United States Attorney General. In this
capacity, he has supervisory authority over all operation of the Executive Office of Immigration
Review (EOIR) which includes all the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA). 8 U.S.C. §1103(g); 8 CFR §1003.0. He is also charged with the administration and the
enforcement of the immigration laws under 8 U.S.C. §1103(a). Respondent Barr is a legal custo-
dian of Petitioners. He is sued in his official capacity.
PROPOSED CLASS
66. Petitioners file this action on behalf of a highly vulnerable putative class: all indi-
viduals in civil immigration detention, as of the date of the filing of this action, at three Florida
detention centers, Krome Service Processing Center, Broward Transitional Center, and Glades
County Detention Center. Each individual is at imminent risk of contracting COVID-19 because
22
of the life-threatening conditions under which they are confined—conditions that violate CDC
guidelines and State and County orders as they pertain to COVID-19.
67. Named Petitioners bring this action as representatives of the following proposed
class:
All civil immigration detained individuals who are held, or who will be
held, by Respondents at the Krome Service Processing Center (“Krome”), the
Broward Transitional Center (“BTC”), and at Glades County Detention Facility
(“Glades”) as of the time of the filing of this action who are:
Sub-class A: detained individuals with a stable location and/or place of resi-
dency in which they can self-quarantine and practice social distancing and hy-
giene pursuant to the CDC guidelines and Exec. Order No. 20-91 upon release.
Sub-class B: all other detained individuals without access to a stable location
and/or place of residency in which they can self-quarantine and practice social
distancing and hygiene pursuant to CDC guidelines and Exec. Order No. 20-91
upon release.
Sub-class C: all other detained individuals who opt-out of Sub-class A & B.
68. The proposed class meets the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
23(a) and (b).
69. The class is sufficiently numerous.
70. Krome detains an average of 600 immigrant detained individuals at any time, with
a population fluctuating between 550 and 875 people since 2006. Southern Poverty Law Center,
Prison by any Other Name: A Report on South Florida Detention Centers (Appx I, Exh. K, at
131-234, 152).
71. BTC detains on average 700 immigrant detained individuals at a time, with a
mandatory minimum of 500 beds for immigrant detained individuals. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 156.)
23
72. Glades detains an average of 407 immigrant detained individuals at a time. (Appx
I, Exh. K, at 165.)
73. All immigrant detained individuals at Krome, BTC, and Glades are detained un-
der the legal authority of Respondent Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigra-
tion and Customs Enforcement. See Masingene v. Martin, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2020 WL 465587
(S.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2020).
74. All members of the class are bound together by common questions of law and fact
– most prominently, whether in the face of the lethal COVID-19 pandemic, the continued civil
detention of the class members at Krome, BTC, and Glades in violation of the CDC guidelines
placing the class members’ health and safety at grave risk violates their constitutional rights.
75. The named Petitioners are proper class representatives because their claims are
typical of the absent class members and because they and their counsel will adequately and vig-
orously represent the class.
76. Rule 23(b)(2) is also satisfied here because the Respondents-Defendants have
“acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class” through creating and main-
taining conditions that put the class at imminent risk of contracting COVID-19, the deadly virus
that is currently sweeping the globe.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
77. This Court has habeas corpus jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 et seq.,
as protected under Art. I § 9, cl. 2 of the United States Constitution (“Suspension Clause”), fed-
eral question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and jurisdiction based on the United States as
24
respondent under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2). This case arises under the United States Constitution;
the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.; the Administrative Pro-
cedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C §§ 701 et seq.; and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amend-
ment. This Court also has remedial authority under to its inherent authority, the Declaratory
Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et seq., and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
78. While only the federal courts of appeal have jurisdiction to review removal orders
directly through petitions for review, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(1), (b), federal district courts have
jurisdiction to hear habeas claims by noncitizens challenging the lawfulness or constitutionality
of ICE conduct. Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 516–17 (2003); Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S.
678, 687 (2001).
79. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus may be brought by anyone “in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
“[T]he writ . . . shall be directed to the person having custody of the persons detained.” 28
U.S.C. § 2243. Accordingly, the proper respondent to a habeas petition is the person who has
custody over the petitioner. “[T]he writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner who
seeks relief, but upon the person who holds him in what is alleged to be unlawful custody.”
Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 478–79 (2004) (quoting Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit, 410 U.S.
484, 495 (1973). District courts are limited to granting habeas relief “within their respective ju-
risdictions.” 28 USC § 2241(a).
80. Petitioners’ current detention and custody as enforced by Respondents constitutes
a “severe restraint [] on [Petitioners’] individual liberty,” such that Petitioners are “in custody in
25
violation of the . . . laws . . . of the United States.” See Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S.
345, 351 (1973); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
81. Federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas claims by noncitizens chal-
lenging the lawfulness or constitutionality of their detention by DHS. See, e.g., Zadvydas v. Da-
vis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018).
82. Federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas claims by noncitizens seek-
ing to protect their due process rights. See Ibrahim v. Acosta, No. 17-CV-24574, 2018 WL
582520, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2018).
83. Pursuant to its jurisdiction, this Court may grant various forms of relief pursuant
to its inherent authority, the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et seq., and the All
Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, and has the ability to enjoin federal officials pursuant to Ex Parte
Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908); See also Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U.S. 605, 619-21 (1912)
(applying Ex Parte Young to federal official); Goltra v. Weeks, 271 U.S. 536, 545 (1926) (same).
84. Each Respondent qualifies as a person with custody over Petitioners. Congress
intended for supervisory officials—like Respondents here, who can do all things necessary to ad-
judicate the action—to qualify as custodians under 8 U.S.C. § 2243. Section 2243’s custodian
requirement applies to government officials who can carry out any court order that may be en-
tered in connection with a proceeding, like ordering Petitioners’ release so that they can shelter
in place and comply with CDC guidelines.
85. Whether this Court has both venue and jurisdiction over Petitioners’ habeas peti-
tion is contingent on two interrelated issues: who is the proper respondent to the petition; and
26
whether this Court has jurisdiction over the proper respondent. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S.
426, 434 (2004).
86. The proper custodian for purposes of this statute is the “immediate custodian”—
that is, the party “with the power to produce the body” of the petitioner before the court or judge.
Padilla, 542 U.S. at 435 (quoting Wales v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 564, 574 (1885)). Respondent
Meade is the immediate custodian of Petitioners detained within the Southern District of Florida
and those detained under his direction pursuant to contract. See Masingene v. Martin, No. 19-cv-
24693-WILLIAMS, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17134, at *9 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2020) (when the
warden of the detention facility has no power to produce the petitioner the proper respondent is
the director of the ICE field office responsible for overseeing the contract facility where the peti-
tioner is detained); see also Sanchez v. Decker, No. 18-cv-8798(AJN), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
138363, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2019) (same); Madera v. Decker, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
169546, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 28, 2018) (same); Vasquez v. Wolf, No. 20-55142, 2020 U.S.
App. LEXIS 5869, at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2020) (finding jurisdiction to grant habeas claim for
petitioner in custody of field office director in California while detained in Texas).
87. Respondent Meade’s office is located in Plantation, Florida, within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court. Because he is the proper respondent and is subject to this Court’s juris-
diction, Petitioner’s habeas petition is properly before this Court. See Masingene, 2020 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 17134 at *9; Villavicencio Calderon v. Sessions, 330 F. Supp. 3d 944, 954 (S.D.N.Y.
2018) (finding the New York City Field Office Director subject to jurisdiction in the Southern
District of New York because his office is located in New York); Saravia v. Sessions, 280 F.
27
Supp. 3d 1168, 1187 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (finding the local ORR official subject to jurisdiction in
the Northern District of California because she was based in San Francisco).
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
88. There is no statutory requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies where
a noncitizen challenges the conditions of detention. See Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Nelson, 872
F.2d 1555, 1561 (11th Cir. 1989).
89. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is also not required where it would be fu-
tile, where administrative remedies are inadequate, and where irreparable harm would result
from requiring exhaustion. See Nierenberg v. Heart Ctr. of Sw. Fla., P.A., 835 F. Supp. 1404,
1407 (M.D. Fla. 1993).
90. There is no exhaustion requirement where a petitioner asserts constitutional
claims that the agency cannot address. See Tefel v. Reno, 972 F. Supp. 608, 616 (S.D. Fla. 1997)
(citing Haitian Refugee Ctr., 872 F.2d at 1560); see also Crayton v. Callahan, 120 F.3d 1217,
1222 (11th Cir. 1997) (“Exhaustion may be excused when the only contested issue is constitu-
tional, collateral to the consideration of [the] claim [before the agency], and its resolution there-
fore falls outside the agency’s authority.”); Warsame v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 796 Fed. Appx. 993,
1006 (11th Cir. 2020) (“Because the BIA does not have the power to decide constitutional
claims—like the validity of a federal statute—[certain constitutional claims] need not be admin-
istratively exhausted.”).
91. In this case, the Petitioners challenge their detention based on their Fifth Amend-
ment due process rights, and the administrative immigration agencies are without the authority to
address and adequately remedy the violation of Petitioners’ constitutional rights. Matter of C-, 20
28
I&N Dec. 529, 532 (BIA 1992) (noting that “it is settled” that the immigration judge and the BIA
cannot decide constitutional questions). Thus, exhaustion should not be required as to Petition-
ers’ constitutional claims, because it would be futile as no agency process exists to raise the con-
stitutional claims this Court.
92. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is also not required where it would be fu-
tile, where administrative remedies are inadequate, and where irreparable harm would result
from requiring exhaustion. See Nierenberg , 835 F. Supp. at 1407. Here, requiring exhaustion
would cause irreparable injury under the exigent circumstances.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. COVID-19 is a global pandemic that poses a significant risk of death or serious ill-
ness to Petitioners.
93. COVID-19 is a highly contagious respiratory disease caused by a newly discov-
ered coronavirus.
94. In some people, COVID-19 causes only mild symptoms or no symptoms at all.9
But for others, COVID-19 can result in more serious injury, including respiratory failure, kidney
failure, and death.10
9
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19):
Symptoms (last updated Mar. 20, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symp-
toms-testing/symptoms.html.
10
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Clin-
ical Care, (last updated April 3, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-
guidance-management-patients.html.
29
95. Infected individuals can face prolonged treatment and recovery periods, requiring
highly attentive hospital care and ventilators that are in increasingly short supply. Those who do
not die can face serious damage to the lungs, heart, liver, or other organs.11
96. Complications from COVID-19 can manifest at an alarming pace. Patients can go
from being medically stable with no need for supplemental oxygen to requiring intubation and
ventilator-assisted breathing within 24 hours. Studies estimate that the average length of time
from onset of symptoms to hospitalization or the development of severe symptoms is only 7-9
days.
97. Older individuals and those with certain medical conditions are at particularly
high risk for serious illness or death from COVID-19.12
98. Since the first case was reported in December 2019, the transmission of COVID-
19 has been growing exponentially. Worldwide, the number of reported cases climbed from 1 to
100,000 in 67 days; from 100,000 to 200,000 in only 11 days; and from 200,000 to 300,000 in
just 4 days.13
11
Lisa Maragakis, M.D., M.P.H., I’ve been diagnosed with the new coronavirus disease,
COVID-19. What should I expect? Johns Hopkins Medicine (last updated Apr. 11, 2020),
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/diagnosed-with-
covid-19-what-to-expect.
12
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, COVID-19: People Who Are at Higher Risk
For Serious Illness (last updated April 2, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-
ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-at-higher-risk.html; World Health Organization, Q&A on
smoking and COVID-19 (24 March 2020), www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-on-smoking-
and-covid-19.
13
Berkeley Lovelace Jr., et al., CNBC, Coronavirus pandemic is accelerating as cases
eclipse 350,000, WHO says (last updated Mar. 23, 2020),
30
99. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) declared the out-
break a global pandemic,14 and COVID-19 has now touched nearly every country on the planet.15
100. The WHO has exhorted both immigration and criminal justice decision makers to
use “non-custodial measures” to protect incarcerated men, women, and children and to stem the
escalating transmission rate. (Appx I, Exh. H, at 92)
101. As of April 12, 2020, the number of confirmed cases worldwide has surpassed
one and a half million, including over 560,000 people in the United States. Over 114,000 people
have died as a result of COVID-19 worldwide, including at least 22,000 in the United States.16
102. Nationally, projections by the CDC indicate that over 200 million people in the
United States could be infected with COVID-19 over the course of the pandemic without effec-
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/23/coronavirus-pandemic-is-accelerating-as-cases-eclipse-
350000-who-says.html.
14
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media
briefing on COVID-19 – 11 March 2020 (Mar. 11, 2020), https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/de-
tail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-
2020.
15
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report – 73, World Health Organization
(Apr. 2, 2020), https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-re-
ports/20200402-sitrep-73-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=5ae25bc7_4https://www.who.int/docs/default-
source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200330-sitrep-70-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=7e0fe3f8_2.
16
Worldometer: Coronavirus, https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries (last
accessed Apr. 12, 2020).
31
tive public health intervention, with as many as 1.7 million deaths in the most severe projec-
tions.17 On March 23, 2020, the WHO warned that the United States could become the next epi-
center of the pandemic.18 Indeed, on March 26, 2020, the United States surpassed every other
country in the world in number of confirmed COVID-19 cases.19 On April 11, 2020, the United
States surpassed every other country in the world in the number of confirmed COVID-19
deaths.20
103. In the state of Florida, transmission of COVID-19 has been rampant. As of April
13, 2020, the number of reported cases in Florida is at 19,895, with the number of reported
deaths from COVID-19 at 461, making Florida the state with the 11th highest number of
COVID-19-related deaths in the United States.21 The counties of Miami-Dade and Broward in
South Florida account for half of all Florida cases of COVID-19.22
104. Due to the lack of widespread testing available in most countries, including the
17
Sheri Fink, Worst-Case Estimates for U.S. Coronavirus Deaths, The New York Times (last
updated Mar. 18, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/us/coronavirus-deaths-esti-
mate.html.
18
Sarah Boseley, US may become next centre of coronavirus pandemic, says WHO, The
Guardian (Mar. 24, 2020), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/24/us-may-become-
centre-of-coronavirus-pandemic-who-says.
19
U.S. Now Leads the World in Confirmed Cases, The New York Times (last updated Apr. 1,
2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/world/coronavirus-news.htmlhttps://www.ny-
times.com/2020/03/26/world/coronavirus-news.html.
20
U.S. Surpasses Italy in Total Number of Confirmed Deaths, The New York Times (last up-
dated Apr. 12, 2020), www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/us/coronavirus-live-updates.html.
21
Listing of United States Total Coronavirus Cases (last updated Apr. 9, 2020),
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/.
22
Florida’s COVID-19 Data and Surveillance Dashboard (last accessed Apr. 13, 2020),
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/96dd742462124fa0b38ddedb9b25e429.
32
United States, the number of confirmed cases is likely but a fraction of the true number of
COVID-19 cases worldwide. As of April 12, 2020, just over 2.8 million tests have been admin-
istered in the entire United States; in Florida, only 184,926.23 Because of the shortage of tests in
the United States—admitted to be a “failing” by top infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony
Fauci24—the CDC currently recommends prioritizing testing for symptomatic healthcare provid-
ers and hospitalized patients25—which means that the number of diagnosed COVID-19 cases
may be only the tip of a very large iceberg.26
i. COVID-19 poses a grave risk to Petitioners because it is so easily transmit-

ted.
105. COVID-19 easily spreads through respiratory droplets that an infected person ex-
pels when they cough, sneeze, speak, or breathe.27 Transmission can occur if those virus-carry-
ing droplets land directly on a nearby person’s nose or mouth, or when a person inhales these
23
The COVID Tracking Project, Our most up-to date data and annotations (last updated Apr.
12, 2020, 11:22 PM), https://covidtracking.com/data/.
24
Elizabeth Chuck, ‘It is a failing. Let’s admit,’ Fauci says of coronavirus testing capacity
NBC News (Mar. 12, 2020), https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/it-failing-let-s-admit-
it-fauci-says-coronavirus-testing-n1157036.
25
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), Eval-
uating and Testing Persons for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (last updated Mar. 24,
2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/hcp/clinical-criteria.html.
26
George Citroner, How Many People in the United States Actually Have COVID-19?,
Healthline (Mar. 18, 2020), https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-many-coronavirus-
cases-are-there.
27
Harvard Medical School, COVID-19 Basics, Harvard Health Publishing (last updated Apr.
6, 2020), https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-basics.
33
droplets or touches a contaminated surfaced and then touches their mouth, nose, or eyes.28 The
coronavirus can survive up to three hours in the air, four hours on copper, 24 hours on cardboard,
and two to three days on plastic and stainless steel.29
106. Many people who carry COVID-19 remain completely asymptomatic and may
never even realize that they are infected, yet they can still spread the disease.30 Some research
suggests that asymptomatic “silent carriers” constitute up to 40% of all those infected.31 Like-
wise, infected people who may eventually develop symptoms are contagious even when they are
in the pre-symptomatic phase and may account for 10-13% of transmissions.32 Even interven-
tions that individually isolate or quarantine only symptomatic individuals, therefore, cannot ef-
fectively contain transmission.
107. There is currently no vaccine against COVID-19. Nor are there any known
28
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), How
Coronavirus Spreads (last reviewed Mar. 4, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-
ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covid-spreads.html.
29
Harvard Health Publishing, As coronavirus spreads, many questions and some answers
Harvard Medical School, Coronavirus Resource Center (last updated Apr. 1, 2020),
https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/coronavirus-resource-center.
30
Apoorva Mandavilli, Infected but Feeling Fine: The Unwitting Coronavirus Spreaders,
The New York Times (Apr. 1, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/31/health/coronavirus-
asymptomatic-transmission.html; accord Maddie Capron, How Many Coronavirus Cases are
Asymptomatic? CDC and Other Data Range as High as 50%, Miami Herald (April 1, 2020),
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article241703806.html.
31
Id.
32
The University of Texas at Austin, "Coronavirus spreads quickly and sometimes before
people have symptoms, study finds," ScienceDaily (Mar. 16, 2020), https://www.science-
daily.com/releases/2020/03/200316143313.htm.
34
prophylactic medications that will prevent or reduce the risk of a COVID-19 infection. Wide-
spread testing would make it easier to identify and isolate carriers, but testing availability is se-
verely limited in the United States. Therefore, the only effective way to protect people against
the risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19 is to limit their exposure to the virus through
social distancing—i.e., physical separation of at least six feet from other people, especially indi-
viduals who are or may be infected, vigilant hygiene, including frequent and thorough hand-
washing with soap and water, and the wearing of masks.33
108. The high incidence of asymptomatic transmission, alongside the nationwide
dearth of diagnostic tests to identify and isolate infected individuals, necessitate strict social dis-
tancing measures to interrupt transmission.
109. Social distancing reduces the average number of contacts between people, which
lowers every individual’s risk both for acquiring COVID-19 and transmitting it to another per-
son.
110. Strict social distancing measures have shown effectiveness in reducing the trans-
mission of COVID-19. On January 23, 2020, the Chinese government instituted a complete
lockdown of Wuhan, China, where the COVID-19 outbreak began, to attempt to fight the spread
of the virus. They shut down all schools, offices, and factories and banned private vehicles from
city streets. This lockdown expanded to other cities in Hubei province in the next several days,
33
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), How
to Protect Yourself (last reviewed Apr. 1, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-
ncov/prevent-getting-sick/prevention.html.
35
extending to 60 million people in China.34 Following the lockdown, Wuhan saw a sustained de-
crease in transmission of COVID-19, and two months later, the daily number of reported cases
dropped to zero.
111. Throughout the world, other countries have also implemented drastic social dis-
tancing measures in an effort to control the COVID-19 pandemic and protect people’s health and
lives. France, for example, imposed a strict nationwide lockdown, prohibiting gatherings of any
size and ordering all residents to stay at home.35 Overall, countries encompassing an estimated
one third of the world’s population have enacted similar restrictions.36 Across the United States,
cities and states are imposing increasingly stringent measures to effectuate social distancing. As
of April 7, 2020, at least 42 states, three counties, and nine cities had ordered their residents to
“shelter in place” or stay at home.37
34
Amy Gunia, China’s Draconian Lockdown Is Getting Credit for Slowing Coronavirus.
Would It Work Anywhere Else?, Time Magazine (Mar. 13, 2020),
https://time.com/5796425/china-coronavirus-lockdown/.
35
Bryan Pietsch, ‘We are at war’: France’s president just announced a 15-day lockdown,
banning public gatherings and walks outdoors, Business Insider (Mar. 16, 2020),
https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-france-president-macron-announces-15-day-lock-
down-2020-3.
36
Andrea Salcedo & Gina Cherelus, Coronavirus Travel Restrictions, Across the Globe, The
New York Times (Apr. 1, 2020) https://www.nytimes.com/article/coronavirus-travel-re-
strictions.html.
37
Sarah Mervosh, et al., Which States and Cities Have Told Residents to Stay at Home, New
York Times (last updated Apr. 7, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/corona-
virus-stay-at-home-order.html.
36
ii. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, all levels of government have di-
rected people to shelter in place, and practice social distancing and vigilant
hygiene.
112. On March 1, 2020, Governor DeSantis issued Executive Order 20-51 directing the
Florida Department of Health to issue a Public Health Emergency.
113. On the same day, the State Surgeon General and State Health Office declared that
a Public Health Emergency exists in the State of Florida as a result of COVID-19.
114. On March 9, 2020, Governor DeSantis declared a state of emergency for the en-
tire state of Florida, describing the spread of COVID-19 as “a risk to the entire state of Florida.”
Exec. Order No. 20-52.38
115. On March 13, 2020, President Donald J. Trump declared a national emergency,
and on March 16, 2020, the President and the CDC issued guidance titled “15 Days to Slow the
Spread,” advising individuals to avoid social gatherings in groups of more than 10 people and
advising older persons and persons with serious underlying health conditions to stay home and
away from others.
116. On March 19, 2020, Mayor Gimenez issued Miami-Dade Emergency Order 07-
20, adopting CDC guidelines encouraging social distancing and maintaining a 6-foot separation
between residents to slow the spread of infection and that events with more than ten attendees
either be cancelled or held virtually.39
38
Available at: https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EO-20-52.pdf.
39
Available at: https://www.miamidade.gov/information/library/coronavirus-emergency-or-
der-07-20-businesses.pdf
37
117. On March 20, 2020, Governor DeSantis issued Executive Order 20-70 to “harmo-
nize” Broward and Palm Beach County with Miami-Dade, ordering the closure of all restaurants,
bars, any other alcohol/food service business establishment with seating for more than 10 people,
in addition to all movie theaters, concert halls, auditoriums, playhouses, bowling alleys, gymna-
siums, fitness centers and beaches.40
118. On March 23, 2020, Governor DeSantis issued Executive Order 20-80, requiring
all individuals who fly into Florida from states with substantial community spread to self-isolate
in Florida for 14 days or the duration of their trip, whichever is shorter.
119. On March 24, 2020, Governor DeSantis issued Executive Order 20-83, directing
the State Surgeon General and State Health Officer to issue a public health advisory urging the
public to avoid all social or recreational gatherings of 10 people of more. Exec. Order No. 20-
83.41
120. On a March 27, 2020, Governor DeSantis issued Executive Order 20-86, requir-
ing all individuals that drive into Florida from states with substantial community spread to self-
isolate in Florida for fourteen days or the duration of their trip, whichever is shorter.
121. On March 30, 2020, Governor DeSantis issued Executive Order No. 20-89, order-
ing Miami-Dade County, Broward County, Palm Beach County and Monroe County to restrict
40
Available at: https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/orders/2020/EO_20-70.pdf
41
38
public access to businesses and facilities deemed non-essential pursuant to the guidelines estab-
lished by Miami-Dade County pursuant to its March 19, 2020 Emergency Order 07-20. Exec.
Order No. 20-89.42
122. This order mandates that essential service establishments not subject to closure
shall continue to determine, adopt and maintain reasonable measures to ensure sanitation and
cleanliness of premises and items that may come into contact with employees and the public, and
such establishments shall take reasonable action to ensure that people adhere to the CDC's social
distancing guidelines.
123. On March 31, 2020, the President updated the previously issued CDC guidance,
renaming it “30 Days to Slow the Spread,” and along with the White House Coronavirus Task
Force urged Americans to continue to adhere to the CDC guidelines and expand community mit-
igation efforts.43
124.
On April 1, 2020, Governor DeSantis issued a shelter-in-place order for the state
of Florida, effective April 3, 2020, Exec. Order No. 20-91.44
42
43
Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/03.16.20_corona-
virus-guidance_8.5x11_315PM.pdf
44
Available at: https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/orders/2020/EO_20-91.pdf.
39
125. On April 4, 2020, Miami Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez issued Emergency Order
19-20, ordering that all person outside their homes are encouraged to wear a cloth facial covering
consistent with current CDC guidelines. Emer. Order. No. 19-20.45
126. On April 8, 2020, Mayor Gimenez extended the state of emergency for Miami-
Dade County. Exec. Order Extending Declaration of Local State of Emergency.46
B. All experts agree that COVID-19 will likely ravage jails, prisons, and detention cen-
ters.
127. Imprisoned populations, including those in ICE detention facilities, are at higher
risk for infectious disease, as compared to the general population. Factors that heighten their risk
include poor sanitation, high population density, and “a higher prevalence of infectious and
chronic diseases and . . . poorer health than the general population, even at younger ages.” CDC
Interim Guidance (Appx I, Exh. F, at 48-74 ).
128. Dr. Shin explains that in detention settings “hundreds, and potentially thousands
of people will become infected, and many will die. This is a direct result of a failure to imple-
ment the recommended measures at an early enough to stage to prevent illness and save lives.
Already, some ICE facilities the numbers of detected COVID-19 infections are growing at an ex-
ponential rate. By the time facilities recognize this kind of exponential growth in detected cases,
it will already be too late. Therefore, individuals should be released from detention.” Shin Decl.,
45
Available at: https://www.miamidade.gov/information/library/coronavirus-emergency-or-
der-19-20-facial-coverings.pdf.
46
Available at: https://www.miamidade.gov/information/library/2020-04-08-state-of-emer-
gency-extension-4.pdf
40
¶40. (Exh. 2). See also, Greer Decl. ¶30 (Exh. 3) (“There is no way for immigration detention fa-
cilities to comply with CDC guidelines on social distancing and quarantining unless Respondents
release detained men and women on a large scale.”).
129. The conclusions of Drs. Shin and Greer are consistent with the conclusions
reached by Drs. Scott Allen and Josiah Rich—experts in the fields of detention health, infectious
disease, and public health who advise DHS’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties—who
urged Congress on March 19, 2020 to take immediate actions to slow the spread of COVID-19 in
ICE detention centers, including releasing immigrants to facilitate maximum social distancing—
an “oxymoron” in congregate settings. (Appx I, Exh. L, at 235-41.)
130. In March 2020, over 3,000 medical professionals across the United States urged
ICE to release individuals and families from detention “to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and
mitigate the harm of an outbreak” to detained individuals, as well as to facility staff.47 They
warned that social distancing measures recommended by the CDC are impossible in immigration
detention and that the capacity for individual isolation and quarantine recommended by the CDC
is extremely limited. When individual isolation is possible, the medical providers expressed con-
cern that “isolation may be misused and place individuals at higher risk of neglect and death.”
131. Like these and other experts,48 Drs. Allen and Rich also warned of the dire conse-
47
Janus Rose, Thousands of Doctors Demand ICE Release Detainees to Stop a COVID-19
Disaster, Vice.com (Mar. 18, 2020), https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/4agp4w/thousands-of-
doctors-demand-ice-release-detainees-to-stop-a-covid-19-disaster
48
See, e.g., Rich Schapiro, Coronavirus could ‘wreak havoc’ on U.S. jails, experts warn,
NBC News (Mar. 12, 2020), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/coronavirus-could-wreak-
41
quences that a COVID-19 outbreak within an ICE detention facility would have on the commu-
nity outside the facility. They describe a “tinderbox” scenario where a rapid outbreak inside a
facility would result in the hospitalization of multiple detained people in a short period of time,
which would spread the virus to the surrounding community and create a demand for ventilators
far exceeding the supply. (Appx I, Exh. L, at 238.)
132. Once a disease is introduced into a jail, prison, or detention facility, it spreads
faster than under most other circumstances due to overcrowding, poor sanitation and hygiene,
and lack of access to adequate medical services. For these same reasons, the outbreak is harder to
control.49 The severe outbreaks of COVID-19 in congregate environments, such as cruise ships
and nursing homes, illustrate how rapidly and widely COVID-19 would rip through an ICE de-
tention facility. On the Diamond Princess cruise ship, for example, approximately 700 passen-
gers and crew on board were infected over the course of three weeks despite the initiation of
quarantine protocols.50
havoc-u-s-jails-experts-warn-n1156586 (“An outbreak of the deadly virus inside the walls of a

U.S. prison or jail is now a question of when, not if, according to health experts.”).
49
Christina Potter, Outbreaks in Migrant Detention Facilities, Outbreak Observatory (Jul.
11, 2019), https://www.outbreakobservatory.org/outbreakthursday-1/7/11/2019/outbreaks-in-mi-
grant-detention-facilities
50
Failures on the Diamond Princess Shadow Another Cruise Ship Outbreak, The New York
Times (Mar. 8, 2020), www.nytimes.com/2020/03/08/world/asia/coronavirus-cruise-ship.html.
42
133. COVID-19 has indeed already started to spread inside U.S. prisons and jails
across the United States, including other carceral systems in Florida,51 Chicago,52 and New York
City.53
134. Correctional staff is also an especially dangerous vector for a COVID-19 outbreak
within a detention center since they regularly travel back and forth between the outside world
and the detention facilities where they work.
135. ICE’s past handling of infectious disease outbreaks in detention centers has been
inept—foreshadowing the impact COVID-19 will have if Petitioners are not released. In 2019, a
mumps outbreak across 57 immigration detention facilities throughout the country led to almost
900 cases of mumps overwhelmingly contracted inside the facilities54 before the outbreak spread
to surrounding communities.55 ICE and CBP facilities have been sites of other outbreaks in just
51
Florida Department of Corrections, COVID-19 Information,
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/comm/covid-19.html.
52
Timothy Williams and Danielle Ivory, Chicago’s Jail Is Top Hot Spot as Virus Spreads
Behind Bars, The New York Times (Apr. 8, 2020), www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/us/corona-
virus-cook-county-jail-chicago.html.
53
Emma Grey Ellis, Covid-19 Poses a Heightened Threat in jails and Prisons, wired.com
(Mar. 24, 2020), https://www.wired.com/story/coronavirus-covid-19-jails-prisons/
54
Leung J, Elson D, Sanders K, et al. Notes from the Field: Mumps in Detention Facilities
that House Detained Migrants—United States, September 2018–August 2019, MMWR Morb
Mortal Wkly, 749–50 (Aug. 30, 2019), https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/vol-
umes/68/wr/pdfs/mm6834a4-H.pdf.
55
See Terrence McDonald, Bergen County Won’t Say if Mumps Outbreak Affects Only Im-
migrant Detainees, Northjersey.com (Jun. 13, 2019), https://www.northjer-
sey.com/story/news/bergen/2019/06/13/bergen-county-nj-wont-say-if-jail-mumps-outbreak-hit-
only-ice-inmates/1448708001. In addition, in 2019, thousands of individuals in 39 immigration
detention centers across the country were exposed to chickenpox. Emma Ockerman, Migrant
Detention Centers Are Getting Slammed with Mumps and Chickenpox, Vice News (Jun. 14,
43
the past couple years,56 in addition to outbreaks in other prisons and jails.57
136. Nationally and internationally, governments and jail and prison staff have already
recognized the threat posed by COVID-19 and released detained individuals. Iran,58 Ethiopia,59
and Texas60 and have all begun to release people to mitigate the harm that the impending spread
of COVID-19 will cause.
137. One of the largest police forces in the nation, the Miami-Dade Police Department,
has ordered its officers to issue citations for all misdemeanor offenses to reduce arrests and jail
population during the pandemic.61 The Broward Sheriff’s Office has done the same, estimating a
2020), https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mb8k5q/migrant-detention-centers-are-getting-
slammed-with-mumps-and-chicken-pox.
56
Christina Potter, Outbreak Observatory supra n. 49, (describing outbreaks of acute respira-
tory illnesses like influenza, and other diseases like scabies and chickenpox). Both Krome and
BTC have had mumps outbreaks, and other illnesses that required quarantine.
57
J. O’Grady, et al., Tuberculosis in prisons: anatomy of global neglect, European Respira-
tory Journal (2011), https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/38/4/752.short (stating that tuberculosis
prevalence among prisoners worldwide can be up to 50 times higher than national averages).
58
Babk Dehghanpisheh and Stephanie Nebehay, Iran Temporarily Releases 70,000 Prison-
ers as Coronavirus Cases Surge, Reuters (Mar. 9, 2020), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-
health-coronavirus-iran/iran-temporarily-releases-70000-prisoners-as-coronavirus-cases-surge-
idUSKBN20W1E5.
59
Bukola Adebayo, Ethiopia pardons more than 4,000 prisoners to help prevent coronavirus
spread, CNN (Mar. 26, 2020), https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/26/africa/ethiopia-pardons-4000-
prisoners-over-coronavirus/index.html.
60
Dillon Collier, Bexar County jail population down more than 500 inmates after release of
nonviolent offenders, KSAT.com (last updated Mar. 25, 2020), https://www.ksat.com/news/lo-
cal/2020/03/25/bexar-county-jail-population-down-more-than-500-inmates-after-release-of-non-
violent-offenders/.
61
https://theappeal.org/miami-covid-19-arrests/
44
reduction in arrests and bookings of 60%.62
138. On April 7, 2020, a temporary restraining order was issued from this Court requir-
ing Miami-Dade Corrections to implement health safety protocols in the Metro West Detention
Center. Order, Swain v. Junior, 20-cv-21457-KMW (S.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2020) (copy at Appx I,
Exh. M, at 242-47).
139. The Federal Bureau of Prisons has instructed prison directors to prioritize releas-
ing federal inmates to home confinement, taking into consideration factors including “[t]he age
and vulnerability of the inmate to COVID-19, in accordance with the [CDC] guidelines.”63
C. The Center for Disease Control and the detention standards inform ICE’s duties to
people at Krome, Glades, and BTC.
140. Krome and BTC are subject to ICE’s Performance-Based National Detention
Standards 2011 (“PBNDS”). (Appx. I, Exh. K, at 152, 156).
141. Section 4.3(II)(10) requires that “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) guidelines for the prevention and control of infectious and communicable diseases shall
be followed.” ICE PBNDS (Appx I, Exh. N, at 248-97, 253).64
62
Two Broward Inmates Test Positive For Coronavirus, As Calls For Release Grow, WLRN
(Apr. 2, 2020), www.wlrn.org/post/two-broward-inmates-test-positive-coronavirus-calls-release-
grow#stream/0; Opinion: Broward County Jail: A COVID-19 time bomb, Sun Sentinel (Apr. 3,
2020), www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/commentary/fl-op-com-finkelstein-broward-county-jail-
threat-coronavirus-covid-20200403-kb7g5zwoinf2pfluw4dsxlda7y-story.html.
63
Office of the Attorney General, Washington, DC, Memorandum for Director of Bureau
Prisons, Prioritization of Home Confinement As Appropriate in Response to COVID-19 Pan-
demic (Mar. 26, 2020), https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000171-1826-d4a1-ad77-
fda671420000.
64
Full copy available at: https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-stand-
ards/2011/pbnds2011r2016.pdf.
45
142. Glades is subject to ICE’s National Detention Standards (NDS). (Appx. I, Exh.
K, at 165.) The current governing version of the NDS is the 2019 National Detention Standards
for Non-Dedicated Facilities.65
143. Under section 1.1(I) of the NDS, covered “facilit[ies] will operate in accordance
with all applicable regulations and codes, such as those of . . . the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC).” ICE NDS (Appx I, Exh. O, at 304).66
144. The CDC has issued an Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Dis-
ease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities. (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 48-73). This
guidance stresses the vital importance of ensuring social distancing, proper hygiene, access to
testing, individual isolation of people who have the virus, and quarantine of people exposed to
the virus. The guidance specifically states that it is intended for ICE, as a law enforcement
agency with custodial authority of detained populations.
145. The CDC Guidance requires that “detained persons who are close contacts of a
confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case (whether the case is another incarcerated/detained per-
son, staff member, or visitor) should be placed under quarantine for 14 days.” (Appx. I, Exh. F,
at 66.)
146. An individual is considered a close contact if they have been within approxi-
mately 6 feet of a COVID-19 case for a prolonged period of time, or have had direct contact with
65
Supersession noted at: www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2000.
66
Full copy available at: www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-standards/2019/nds2019.pdf.
46
infectious secretion from such a person, such as coughing. (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 50.) “Close con-
tact can occur while caring for, living with, visiting, or sharing a common space with a COVID-
19 case.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 50, 66)
147. “A confirmed case has received a positive result from a COVID-19 laboratory
test, with or without symptoms,” and “[a] suspected case shows symptoms.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at
51.) Symptoms “include fever, cough, and shortness of breath.” (Id.)
148. Quarantine is “the practice of confining individuals who had close contact with a
COVID-19 case to determine whether they develop symptoms,” and it “should last a period of 14
days.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 51.) “Ideally, each quarantined individual would be quarantined in a
single cell with solid walls and a solid door that closes.” (Id.) “If symptoms develop during the
14-day period, the individual should be placed under medical isolation and evaluated for
COVID-19.” (Id.)
149. “Medical isolation refers to confining a confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case
(ideally to a single cell with solid walls and a solid door that closes), to prevent contact with oth-
ers and to reduce the risk of transmission.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 51.) “Medical isolation end when
the individual meets pre-established clinical and/or testing criteria for release from isolation, in
consultation with clinic providers and public health officials” as detailed in the CDC’s Guidance.
(Id.)
150. “Cohorting refers to the practice of isolating multiple laboratory-confirmed
COVID-19 cases together as a group, or quarantining close contacts of a particular case together
as a group.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 50.) “Ideally, cases should be isolated individually, and close
contacts should be quarantined individually.” (Id.)
47
151. The CDC Guidance states that detention centers should put people exposed to
close contact with confirmed or symptomatic COVID-19 cases in individual, not group, quaran-
tine: “Facilities should make every possible effort to quarantine close contacts of COVID-19
cases individually.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 66) (emphasis added). Cohort quarantine “should only
be practiced if there are no other available options.” (Id.) (emphasis added). As the CDC ex-
plains, “[c]ohorting multiple quarantined close contacts of a COVID-19 case could transmit
COVID-19 from those who are infected to those who are uninfected.” (Id.)
152. According to the CDC Guidance’s order of preference, the last option before a
“safe[] transfer to another facility with capacity to quarantine” is cohorting in a detainee’s “regu-
larly assigned housing but with no movement outside of the unit (if an entire housing unit has
been exposed),” but only if it is possible to employ social distancing strategies “to maintain at
least 6 feet of space between individuals.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 67) (emphasis added). “If co-
horted, quarantined individuals should wear face masks at all times (to prevent transmission
from infected to uninfected individuals).” (Id.) (emphasis added). The last option of transfer
“should be avoided due to the potential to introduce infection to another facility.” (Id.)
153. But, “[f]acilities without onsite healthcare capacity, or without sufficient space to
implement effective quarantine, should coordinate with local public health officials to ensure that
close contacts of COVID-19 cases will be effectively quarantined and medically monitored.”
(Appx. I, Exh. F, at 66) (emphasis added).
154. Even stricter quarantining and isolation protocols apply in confirmed or suspected
cases of COVID-19 infection. (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 62-66)
48
155. However, the need to “[r]estrict quarantined individuals from leaving the facility
(including transfers to other facilities)” is subject to an exception for detained individuals “re-
leased from custody.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 68)
156. Release to individualized quarantining and isolation outside of a detention facility
serves public health because, as the CDC explains, “[i]ncarcerated/detained persons live, work,
eat, study, and recreate within congregate environments, heightening the potential for COVID-19
to spread once introduced,” and “[o]ptions for medical isolation of COVID-19 cases are limited
and vary depending on the type and size of facility, as well as the current level of available ca-
pacity, which is partly based on medical isolation needs for other conditions.” (Appx. I, Exh. F,
at 49)
157. Additionally, “[t]here are many opportunities for COVID-19 to be introduced into
a correctional or detention facility, including daily staff ingress and egress; transfer of incarcer-
ated/detained persons between facilities and systems, to court appearances, and to outside medi-
cal visits; and visits from family, legal representatives, and other community members.” (Appx.
I, Exh. F, at 49)
158. “Some settings, particularly jails and detention centers, have high turnover, admit-
ting new entrants daily who may have been exposed to COVID-19 in the surrounding commu-
nity or other regions.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 49)
159. Further, “[p]ersons incarcerated/detained in a particular facility often come from a
variety of locations, increasing the potential to introduce COVID-19 from different geographic
areas.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 49)
49
160. As for new entrants, the CDC also recommends routine intake quarantining,
which means “quarantining all new intakes for 14 days before they enter the facility’s general
population (SEPARATELY from other individuals who are quarantined due to contact with a
COVID-19 case).” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 61.) (emphasis in original). The CDC further specifies
that detention centers should conduct “pre-intake screening and temperature checks for all new
entrants” and to put new intakes with symptoms (fever, cough, shortness of breath) in medical
isolation. (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 57)
161. Further, ICE’s governing detention standards require reporting of the spread of
communicable diseases within their detained populations. ICE PBNDS, § 4.3(V)(C)(1) (“Facili-
ties shall comply with current and future plans implemented by federal, state or local authorities
addressing specific public health issues including communicable disease reporting require-
ments.”) (copy at Appx I, Exh. N, at 256-57); id., at § 4.3(V)(C)(1)(h) (“Each facility shall have
written plans that . . . shall include: . . . (h) management of infectious diseases and reporting them
to local and/or state health departments in accordance with established guidelines and applicable
laws.”); see also ICE NDS, § 4.3(II)(D)(2) (“The facility will have written plans that address the
management of infectious and communicable diseases, including, but not limited to, testing, iso-
lation, prevention, and education. This also includes reporting and collaboration with local or
state health departments in accordance with state and local laws and recommendations.”) (copy
at Appx I, Exh. O, at 314).
50
D. Continued detention in the unique circumstances of the current pandemic poses a

dire and imminent threat to Petitioners and others at Krome, Glades, and BTC.
162. ICE’s knowing and affirmative conduct in failing to address the clear foreseeabil-
ity of severe outbreaks at Krome, BTC, and Glades, and to take the action of releasing Petition-
ers, demonstrates a disregard for the rights, well-being, and the humanity of detained immi-
grants. The continued detention of Petitioners and other detained individuals at Krome, Glades,
and BTC is reckless.
163. Despite the global pandemic and shelter-in-place orders across the country and
knowing the risks, ICE affirmatively continues to bring new people into detention centers and to
transfer previously detained people between facilities.67 ICE continues to issue detainer requests
to counties instructing jail officials to hold people for them past the point of criminal custody
coming to an end. ICE then transports these men and women from the local jail to immigration
detention at Krome, Glades, and BTC.
67
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE
Guidance on COVID-19 (last reviewed/updated Apr. 2, 2020), https://www.ice.gov/covid19 (“ . .
. our law enforcement officers and agents continue daily enforcement operations to make crimi-
nal and civil arrests.”); see also Richard Hall, Coronavirus: ICE Crackdown Stokes Fears for
Safety of Undocumented Immigrants During Pandemic, Independent (Mar. 15, 2020),
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronavirus-us-immigrants-ice-raids-
trump-bernie-sanders-undocumented-healthcare-a9398816.html (noting that “[i]n New York, im-
migration advocates have noted a marked increase in ICE activity in recent months, which has
not slowed as the coronavirus outbreak has worsened.”). On March 18, 2020, ICE announced it
would “temporarily adjust” its enforcement practices during the COVID-19 outbreak, but de-
clined to say it would stop arresting people altogether. Rebecca Klar, ICE Pausing Most Enforce-
ment During Coronavirus Crisis, The Hill (Mar. 18, 2020), https://thehill.com/latino/488362-ice-
pausing-most-immigration-enforcement-during-coronavirus-crisis.
51
164. With respect to people like Petitioners who are already in custody, ICE is violat-
ing the CDC guidelines and detention standards in multiple ways.
165. Rather than use individual quarantining of people who have been exposed to
COVID-19, ICE routinely uses en masse “cohort quarantining.” ICE commends itself for having
placed large groups of people who have been exposed to COVID-19 together in the same living
space, despite the CDC’s statements that this measure will facilitate the spread of the virus
among those quarantined and throughout the facility and outside community. (Appx. I, Exh. I, at
123 ¶10)
166. On top of the fact that cohorting is supposed to be last option when “there are no
other available options” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 6), it is only an option when it is possible to employ
social distancing strategies “to maintain at least 6 feet of space between individuals” (Appx. I,
Exh. F, at 67), because “[c]ohorting multiple quarantined close contacts of a COVID-19 case
could transmit COVID-19 from those who are infected to those who are uninfected” (Appx. I,
Exh. F, at 66).
167. Even in the general case, when a facility is not dealing with a positive or sus-
pected COVID-19 case, or a case of a close contact to a positive or suspected COVID-19 case,
detention facilities are instructed by the CDC Guidelines to “[i]mplement social distancing strat-
egies to increase the physical space between incarcerated/detained persons (ideally 6 feet be-
tween all individuals, regardless of the presence of symptoms).” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 58).
168. ICE’s cohorting practice contravenes the CDC guidelines. Cohorting is not the
same as quarantine or medical isolation. The CDC guidance makes it clear that cohorting is to be
52
used only as a last resort. ICE, however, is using cohorting as the planned—and primary—re-
sponse to a known COVID-19 exposure, not a practice of last resort. (Appx. I, Exh. I, at 123
¶10).
169. Moreover, cohorted groups are confined in spaces that prevent them from practic-
ing social distancing. Cohorted groups are not provided with masks to prevent the transmission
of COVID-19, as required by the CDC protocols. (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 67).
170. ICE has no plans to place suspected COVID-19 cases in individual medical isola-
tion in which “[e]ach isolated individual should be assigned their own housing space and bath-
room,” as the CDC instructs. (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 62) Moreover, people who exhibit flu-like
symptoms are not always removed from the general population but instead are sleeping and eat-
ing within feet of others.
171. Further, many of ICE’s claims of having implemented COVID-19 precautions are
either contradicted by reports from detained people, or the procedures they have implemented are
ineffective.
172. Social distancing is impossible. People sleep in crowded rooms in bunk beds
close together and must eat and bathe in close quarters. People are not provided sufficient soap to
be able to comply with CDC hygiene inventory and hand-washing procedures. (Appx. I, Exh. F,
at 54-57) The bathrooms in these facilities are often unsanitary and in poor condition. Bathrooms
have been identified as a particularly potent vehicle for the spread of COVID-19.68
68
Why You Should Flush With The Lid Down: Experts Warn Of Fecal-Oral Transmission Of
COVID-19, Forbes (Apr. 2, 2020), www.forbes.com/sites/alexandrasternlicht/2020/04/02/why-
you-should-flush-with-the-lid-down-virologist-warns-of-fecal-oral-transmission-of-covid-
19/#6d581edd6eb8. CDC guidelines require detention centers to, ”[s]everal times per day, clean
53
173. Other measures ICE claims to have taken, including temporarily suspending so-
cial visitation in detention and screening new detained immigrants for certain symptoms of
COVID-19, are insufficient to curb the risk of infection within the detention centers. Detained
individuals report that ICE has not implemented the CDC’s recommendation that newly detained
individuals be in individual quarantine for 14 days before joining the rest of the population.
174. Not all COVID-19 patients present with fever or respiratory symptoms. Many
may be asymptomatic but still contagious, or have mild or less common symptoms. As symp-
toms of COVID-19 can present anywhere from 2 to 14 days after exposure, individuals who pass
ICE’s screenings can expose other detained individuals, as well as detention center staff, if the
CDC’s new intake quarantining protocols are not followed.
175. Release from custody is both the only effective public health measure to curb in-
creased transmission of COVID-19 and the most practical strategy to protect people like Peti-
tioners from harm.
Krome Service Processing Center
176. Krome is a detention center located at the edge of Miami-Dade County. ICE’s
contract with Akima Global Services (“AGS”), a third-party contractor, requires a mandatory
and disinfect surfaces and objects that are frequently touched, especially in common areas. Such
surfaces may include objects/surfaces not ordinarily cleaned daily (e.g., doorknobs, light
switches, sink handles, countertops, toilets, toilet handles, recreation equipment, kiosks, and tele-
phones).” www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidance-cor-
rectional-detention.html.
54
minimum of 450 occupied beds. (Appx I, Exh. K, 149.) The population typically oscillates be-
tween 550 and 875 persons—far exceeding the contractual mandatory minimum. (Appx I, Exh.
K, 149)
177. ICE employs both ICE employees and AGS contract workers at the detention cen-
ter. (Appx I, Exh. K, 149.) These workers typically live in Miami Dade County or other commu-
nities in South Florida.
178. Krome is divided into different housing units, however, all housing units share
common spaces which include the recreation area, medical area, and the cafeteria.
179. Each general population housing unit (referred to as “pods”) is an open bay—
meaning that there are at least 65 bunk bed cots per unit. (Appx I, Exh. K, 149.) The bunk beds
are positioned within six feet of each other. The open bay also has a communal space with a ta-
ble and seating areas, showers, toilets, and sinks. The general population units do not have indi-
vidual cells.
180. Detained individuals prepare the communal food. Up until very recently, several
housing pods ate together in the cafeteria. The cafeteria is now closed due to COVID-19, and
housing units are eating together in the communal area of their pod.
181. Krome’s failure to provide adequate medical care has been an ongoing concern.
(Appx I, Exh. K, at 141-43, 150). Critical medical care is routinely delayed—sometimes for
months—or denied outright. Id. An inspection conducted in February 2019 concluded that
Krome’s medical care was deficient. Lead Compliance Inspector.69 Instead of addressing sick
69
Annual Detention Inspection of the Krome Service Processing Center, The Nakamoto
Group, Inc. (Feb. 14, 2019) available at: https://www.ice.gov/doclib/facilityInspections/kro-
meSPC_CL_02-14-2019.pdf.
55
calls twice a day, as the detention standards require, it takes two to eight days to triage a sick
call. (Appx I, Exh. K, 150.) When medical issues are addressed, individuals report not being
properly treated or not treated at all. (Appx I, Exh. K, 150.) Proving ibuprofen is commonly used
as a blanket solution to any and all medical issues. (Appx I, Exh. K, 150.)
182. Because Krome fails to meet detained individual’s medical needs under normal
circumstances, the medical staff are ill-prepared to provide adequate medical treatment amidst
the COVID-19 pandemic.
183. Krome has a large population and is often overcrowded. (Appx I, Exh. F, at 149-
50) (overcrowding at Krome). ICE can tightly detain up to 1,000 individuals in the facility.
(Appx I, Exh. K, 230 (endnote 118).) When the population reaches that number, it becomes dan-
gerously overcrowded with 100 or more people in a pod with 65 beds. To house these numbers,
Krome supplies stackable beds placed between bunkbeds, in front of the showers and bathrooms,
next to the phones, and in the common television area. (Appx I, Exh. K, 149.) At least one pod,
with 120 detainees, is currently in such a crowded state.
184. Overcrowding at Krome has led to many sanitation and health issues. (Appx I,
Exh. K, 150.) It becomes impossible to avoid human contact and the unit is harder to keep clean.
(Appx I, Exh. K, 150)
56
185. During the summer of 2019, there was a mumps outbreak at Krome in which
housing units were group quarantined.70 Ten years before that, there was an outbreak of the
H1N1 virus at Krome.71
186. Detained men at Krome live in pods that house approximately 50 to 120 individu-
als. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. A, at 1-9); Gayle Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. B, at
10-14).
187. The large number of detained individuals in each pod make it infeasible to stay
six feet apart and practice social distancing. See Arias-Martinez Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. C, at
15-21); Jalloh Dec. ¶ 9(Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29); Darwyn Dec. ¶ 5(c) (Appx II, Exh. E, at 30-
34); Perez-Jeronimo Dec. ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. F, at 35-39); Chavez Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. G,
at 40-46); Jalloh Dec. ¶ 20 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29); Mendez-Escobar Dec. ¶ 14 (Appx II,
Exh. H, at 47-51); Zamora-Mendoza Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. I, at 52-54); Ocana-Guzman Dec.
¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. J, at 55-60).
188. The pods have bunk beds for the detained individuals to sleep, which are not 6
feet apart. See Arias-Martinez Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. C, at 15-21); Alfaro-Garcia Dec. at ¶ 7
(Appx II, Exh. K, at 61-67); Khan Dec. at ¶ 8a (Appx II, Exh. L, at 68-74); Jalloh Dec. ¶ 12
(Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29); Perez-Jeronimo Dec. ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. F, at 35-39); Chavez Dec. at
70
Letter to ICE and Wardens from AI Justice, SPLC, AAAJ, and project South (Mar. 13,
2020), https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/ltr_to_ice_and_wardens_re_covid-19_-
_2020.03_-_final.pdf
71
After a Krome employee’s toddler contracted H1N1, ICE was criticized for not providing
employees with proper protection, training, and information to deal with the virus. Kyle Munzen-
reider, Infact Child of ICE Employee Has Swine Flu, Miami New Times (June 23, 2009),
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/infant-child-of-ice-employee-has-swine-flu-6565669.
57
¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. G, at 40-46); Zamora-Mendoza Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. I, at 52-54); Ocana-
Guzman Dec. ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. J, at 55-60).
189. There are at least three housing units of approximately 48, 59, and 120 people,
one of which includes a detained person with prostate cancer, that are under cohort quarantine.
See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. A, at 1-9); Perez Limones Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh.
M, at 75-78); Gayle Dec. at ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. B, at 10-14); Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh.
N, at 79-83). Petitioner Gayle is housed in a quarantined pod with 120 detained individuals,
which has a sign on the wall that says the maximum capacity is 80. See Gayle Dec. at ¶¶ 6, 12
(Appx II, Exh. B, at 10-14). Detained individuals in these units share toilets and showers that are
less than six feet apart. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. A, at 1-9). The room of 48
men has only three urinals and one toilet. Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. N, at 79-83). At
least one of the rooms under cohort quarantine still leaves their room once a day to interact with
hundreds of other detained individuals in the recreation area, where the men are crowded into a
small space. Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. N, at 79-83). During communal meals, individ-
uals are forced to eat in close contact with each other. See Mendez-Escobar Dec. ¶ 14 (Appx II,
Exh. H, at 47-51).
190. A recent photograph, from a Miami Herald Article, of one of the general popula-
tion units at Krome shows men crowded into the common space. (Appx I, Exh. P, at 327-335,
334). None of the men in the photograph are wearing masks or gloves. Men are crowded around
small tables. The bunk beds are located within a few feet of each other and of the tables. Social
distancing is impossible in this setting.
58
191. Despite the COVID-19 threat, Respondents continue to detain new people at
Krome. See Arrak Dec. ¶ 27 (Appx II, Exh. O, at 84-90)
192. Some detained individuals who require additional mental health and behavioral
care are housed in the Krome Behavioral Health Unit (“BHU”), which is split into two sections.
One unit can house 22 people, while the other can house eight people. Hasan Dec. ¶ 6 (Appx II,
Exh. R, at 106-12). Individuals in the BHU typically share a room with another person, and sleep
less than six feet apart. See Warsane Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105); Farah Dec. ¶ 6
(Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97). Two detained individuals in the BHU do not currently share a room
while sleeping, but are in close contact with others in the unit when in communal areas. See Ha-
san Dec. ¶ 7-8 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Arrak Dec. ¶ 6-7 (Appx II, Exh. O, at 84-90); Farah
Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97).
193. Detained individuals in BHU are required to go to the recreation yard twice a day
for an hour, despite complaints that the area is too small to allow social distancing. See Hasan
Dec. ¶ 30 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Arrak Dec. ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. O, at 84-90); Farah Dec.
¶ 21 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97). The guards threaten them with being sent to the “hole,” or Seg-
regated Housing Unit, unless they go to recreation. Arrak Dec. ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. O, at 84-90).
Some detained individuals feel they need to go into disciplinary housing or remain isolated in
their rooms to prevent the risk of infection, but are concerned their mental health conditions, in-
cluding post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder, will worsen. Arrak Dec. ¶ 7
(Appx II, Exh. O, at 84-90); Hasan Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12).
194. Meals in the BHU are served in the dayroom to all detained individuals at the
same time, but there are only two tables and few chairs, and some have to sit on the floor to eat.
59
Warsane Dec. ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105); Hasan Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12);
Farah Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97). The tables and two phones in the dayroom that all
detained individuals in BHU use are not being cleaned. Warsane Dec. ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at
98-105); Hasan Dec. ¶ 31 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Arrak Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. O, at 84-
90). They only have toilet paper available to clean the tables in the common area, and one man
reports using toilet paper to clean his room. See Warsane Dec. ¶ 23 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105);
Farah Dec. ¶ 18 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97). Krome staff bring food in a cart to the unit for all
meals, but do not wear masks or gloves despite requests from the detained population to do so.
Warsane Dec. ¶ 21 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105). The guards laugh at these requests. Warsane
Dec. ¶ 22 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105).
195. Detained individuals are requesting face masks, but staff have not provided them
and have said they are not necessary for detainees or are only for officers. See Warsane Dec. ¶ 25
(Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105); Hasan Dec. ¶ 19-20 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Arrak Dec. ¶ 15,
21 (Appx II, Exh. O, at 84-90); Farah Dec. ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97).
196. Soap has not been readily available, and some individuals have not been able to
shower unless they had funds to purchase soap from commissary. Warsane Dec. ¶ 17 (Appx II,
Exh. Q, at 98-105); Hasan Dec. ¶ 11, 13 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Arrak Dec. ¶ 8, 23 (Appx
II, Exh. O, at 84-90); Farah Dec. ¶ 20 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97). Even when purchased, de-
tained individuals are not being given these items for several days and are running out of essen-
tials like soap and shampoo. Warsane Dec. ¶ 18 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105); Hasan Dec. ¶ 11
(Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Farah Dec. ¶ 20 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97). Hand sanitizer appears
to be only available to nurses, who sometimes spray sanitizer on detained individuals’ hands
60
when they are receiving medication. See Hasan Dec. ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Arrak
Dec. ¶ 25 (Appx II, Exh. O, at 84-90); Farah Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97).
197. Individuals taking prescription medication see nurses twice a day, in the morning
and evening. Warsane Dec. ¶ 20 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105). Nurses are not consistently wear-
ing gloves or masks when dispensing medication or checking if the person has swallowed the
medication. Warsane Dec. ¶ 20 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105). Guards pat down detained individ-
uals several times a day and do shakedowns of bedrooms three times per day, but do not always
wear gloves or masks. Warsane Dec. ¶ 29 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105); Hasan Dec. ¶ 23, 24
(Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Arrak Dec. ¶ 18 (Appx II, Exh. O, at 84-90); Farah Dec. ¶ 12-14
(Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97). Around April 8, five guards were sent home while others are work-
ing overtime. Warsane Dec. ¶ 33 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105); Hasan Dec. ¶ 21, 28 (Appx II,
Exh. R, at 106-12); Farah Dec. ¶ 16 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97).
198. The number of people in all of the general population units is high, and new de-
tained individuals have continued to come in over the past few weeks. See Darwyn Dec. ¶ 6(j)
(Appx II, Exh. E, at 30-34); Tolentino Dec. ¶ 6, 11 (Appx II, Exh. S, at 113-17); Tepetate-Mar-
tinez Dec. at ¶ 15 (Appx II, Exh. T, at 118-23); Gayle Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. B, at 10-14 );
Arias-Martinez Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. C, at 15-21); Khan Dec. at ¶ 8(k) (Appx II, Exh. L, at
68-74). Petitioner Aparicio has seen about 15 new detained individuals in his unit in the last two
weeks. See Aparicio Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. F, at 35-39).
199. As recently as April 4, 2020, new detained individuals have been transferred to
Krome and were not being tested to determine whether they have COVID-19. See Jalloh Dec. ¶
13 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29); Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9).
61
200. At least two of the detained individuals recently transferred to Krome had fevers,
one of whom was visibly shaking in the dining room. Both were eventually taken out of the gen-
eral population. See Arias-Martinez Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. C, at 15-21). One detained per-
son who contracted a severe fever was removed from his room in the middle of the night by ICE
agents, who were accompanied by police officers carrying guns with rubber bullets. See Car-
denas Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. N, 79-83). The officers would not explain to the other men in
the room what was happening, and the next night a new man was brought to fill the bed of the
sick man. Id. Since then, at least four other men in that sick man’s room have developed
COVID-19 symptoms, and have not been able to see a doctor. Cardenas Dec. at ¶ ¶ 6, 8 (Appx
II, Exh. N, 79-83). One of these men has asthma, putting him at severe risk of dying from
COVID-19. See Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. N, 79-83).
201. One detainee tested positive for COVID-19, and the two officers who were
watching him also tested positive. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Chavez
Dec. at ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. G, at 40-46).
202. Approximately 60 Krome employees have been placed under quarantine, after a
total of four staff tested positive for COVID-19. See Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. N, 79-
83). The facility is so understaffed that some employees are now working 12-hour shifts. Id. at ¶
9 (Appx II, Exh. N, 79-83).
203. Detained individuals have been transported in and out of Krome to hospital and
medical visits since the outbreak, potentially having contact with infected individuals. See Por-
tuondo Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9).
62
204. The detained individuals are close together when they eat because the tables and
chairs where they eat cannot be moved. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 16 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Ab-
dul Jalloh Dec. ¶ 15 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29); Tolentino Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. S, at 113-17);
Alfaro Garcia Dec. ¶ 16 (Appx II, Exh. K, at 61-67); Tepetate-Martinez Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh.
T, at 118-23); Tolentino Dec. ¶ 5b (Appx II, Exh. S, at 113-17); Perez Limones Dec. ¶ 13 (Appx
II, Exh. M, at 75-78); Chavez Dec. ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. G, at 40-46).
205. Detained individuals are not being provided with masks or gloves, even when
they are in cohort quarantine. See Portuondo Dec. ¶ 25 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Khan Dec. ¶ 8(c)
(Appx II, Exh. L, at 68-74); Escobar Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. H, at 47-51); Zamora Mendoza
Dec. ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. I, at 52-54). Portuondo reported that there is one soap dispenser at the
entrance to the toilet area in his pod, which was only installed 7 or 8 days ago. See Portuondo
Dec. at ¶ 21 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9). They have a weekly allowance of soap and some use less
than needed to make sure not to run out. See Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶ 21 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29).
Because Krome does not provide enough personal hygiene products, detained individuals must
buy them in the commissary. See Tolentino Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. S, at 113-17). But the com-
missary is now closed and people now have to submit a request to order items, which can take
anywhere from two days to over a week to arrive. See Farah Dec. ¶ 20 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-
97).
206. There are no masks, gloves, or hand sanitizer available for purchase. See Por-
tuondo Dec. ¶ 22 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Gayle Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. B, at 10-14); Arias-Mar-
tinez Dec. ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. C, at 15-21); Jalloh Dec. ¶ 22 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29); Chavez
Dec. ¶ 18 (Appx II, Exh. G, at 40-46).
63
207. When detained individuals try to make their own masks, they are told they are not
allowed to cover their faces. See Aparicio Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. F, at 35-39); Escobar Dec. ¶ 8
(Appx II, Exh. H, at 47-51).
208. There is no hand sanitizer available in the common area. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶
20 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Alfaro Garcia Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. K, at 61-67); Tepetate-Mar-
tinez Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. T, at 118-23); Darwyn Dec. ¶ 5(d) (Appx II, Exh. E, at 30-34);
Chavez Dec. at ¶ 16 (Appx II, Exh. G, at 40-46). Detained individuals have reported seeing the
guards with hand sanitizer but detained individuals are not allowed to use it. See Portuondo Dec.
at ¶ 20 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Chavez Dec. at ¶ 16 (Appx II, Exh. G, at 40-46).
209. There is hand sanitizer in the nurse’s area where detained men receive medica-
tion. See Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶ 21 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29). However, detained individuals are
only allowed one squirt when receiving medication. See Farah Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-
97).
210. Until recently, Krome staff were not wearing masks or gloves. See Portuondo
Dec. at ¶ 25 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶ 25 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29 ); Perez
Limones Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. M, at 75-78); Chavez Dec. at ¶ 21 (Appx II, Exh. G, at 40-
46). Some officers still fail to wear gloves or masks. See Warsane Dec. ¶ 21, 29 (Appx II, Exh.
Q, at 98-105); Hasan Dec. ¶ 23, 24 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Arrak Dec. ¶ 18; Farah Dec. ¶
12-14 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97); Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 26 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Chavez Dec. at
¶ 22 (Appx II, Exh. G, at 40-46). Guards are seen touching their faces and then things in the
pods, such as people, food trays and other items in the living area, and they are not observed
washing their hands often. See Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶ 26-28 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29); Alfaro
64
Garcia Dec. at ¶¶ 10-11, 14 (Appx II, Exh. K, at 61-67); Tepetate-Martinez Dec. at ¶¶ 13-14
(Appx II, Exh. T, at 118-23); Darwyn Dec. ¶ 6(h)-(i) (Appx II, Exh. E, at 30-34); Portuondo Dec.
at ¶ 27 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Chavez Dec. at ¶ 23 (Appx II, Exh. G, at 40-46).
211. Detained individuals have not seen efforts to clean or disinfect areas more fre-
quently. Escobar Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. H, at 47-51). Detained individuals serve the food and
clean the facility, but are not provided with masks when working these jobs. See Abdul Jalloh
Dec. ¶ 16-18 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29); Aparicio Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. F, at 35-39); Tepe-
tate-Martinez Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. T, at 118-23); Perez Limones Dec. at ¶ 14 (Appx II,
Exh. M, at 75-78). Detained individuals prepare and touch the food, distribute the clothing, and
they do not use gloves or masks or use other hygiene measures to help ensure that the virus does
not spread. See Darwyn Dec. ¶ 6(a)-(d) (Appx II, Exh. E, at 30-34).
212. Detained individuals report that a nurse said masks were being reused because of
supply shortages. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 25 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Chavez Dec. at ¶ 21 (Appx
II, Exh. G, at 40-46).
213. Detained individuals have not been trained on how to limit the spread of COVID-
19. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 23 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9). See Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶¶ 19, 23 (Appx II,
Exh. D, at 22-29); Alfaro Garcia Dec. at ¶ 18 (Appx II, Exh. K, at 61-67); Arias-Martinez Dec. at
¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. C, at 15-21); See Darwyn Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. E, at 30-34). They are only
getting information from Krome staff when they or their families ask, but all they are told is that
there are thousands of COVID-19 cases in the country. See Aparicio Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. F,
at 35-39).
65
214. As of April 7, 2020, detained individuals have had their TVs, phones, and tablets
confiscated. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 19 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9). No unit within Krome is allowed
to watch TV. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 19 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Alfaro Garcia Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx
II, Exh. K, at 61-67); See Darwyn Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. E, at 30-34).
215. A recent emergency that was announced over the speakers at Krome was due to
COVID-19. See Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶ 29 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29).
216. On April 7, some detained individuals raised concerns about conditions and fears
of COVID-19 and guards began beating them. Flores Ramos Dec. ¶ 20 (Appx II, Exh. U, at 124-
30). One person was kicked in the ribs although he was not among those making complaints.
Flores Ramos Dec. ¶ 20 (Appx II, Exh. U, at 124-30). The guards are not allowing detained peo-
ple to contact their attorneys, which that man believes is retaliation in response to these com-
plaints. Flores Ramos Dec. ¶ 21 (Appx II, Exh. U, at 124-30).
217. Since the COVID-19 outbreak at Krome, there has been a decrease in medical
staff. See Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶ 35 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29). There has been no increase in
screenings. See Darwyn Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. E, at 30-34). Detained individuals who request
evaluation and to see a doctor have had their requests denied. See Darwyn Dec. ¶ 7, 11 (Appx II,
Exh. E, at 30-34).
218. When someone is sick with cold symptoms, they must wait five to eight days be-
fore they can see a doctor. See Aparicio Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. F, at 35-39); Gayle Dec. at ¶ 8
(Appx II, Exh. B, at 10-14); Perez Limones Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. M, at 75-78). When other
66
detained individuals are taken out of the pods for coughing or issues with breathing, the other de-
tained individuals are not told whether they have been exposed to COVID-19. See Gayle Dec. at
¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. B, at 10-14).
219. A detained man was sick with a cough and requested to see a doctor, but was told
that he was not a priority. See Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29). He was not
isolated from the rest of the pod. Id (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29). Detained individuals have symp-
toms, including fever, goosebumps, and cough, but the rest of the detained population is not be-
ing told what is wrong with them. See Alfaro Garcia Dec. at ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. K, at 61-67).
220. If detained individuals have severe symptoms, they are taken to another area and
provided with medication for headaches, but then returned to the pod. See Aparicio Dec. ¶ 8
(Appx II, Exh. F, at 35-39). When one detainee developed a cough, a staff member took his tem-
perature and gave him two pills, without explaining to him what was wrong with him. See Gayle
Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. B, at 10-14).
221. Detained individuals are not getting tested when they are sick, unless they are
having difficulty breathing. See Aparicio Dec. ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. F, at 35-39).
222. The medically vulnerable, due to chronic illnesses, are not being separated from
the rest of the population. See Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶ 32 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29); Arias-Mar-
tinez Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. C, at 15-21); Khan Dec. at ¶¶ 7-8 (Appx II, Exh. L, at 68-74).
223. On Sunday, April 5, 2020, the Miami Herald reported that the Monroe County Jail
ended its 23-year contract with the ICE Miami Field Office, and returned 48 detained individuals
to the Krome “in the middle of the night Friday.” “Sources told the Herald that the frequent trips
67
to the crowded facility in Miami had the sheriff ’s office uneasy over the possibility that the
coronavirus could easily be transmitted.” (Appx I, Exh. Q, 336-41.)
224. On April 8, 2020, the Assistant Field Officer Liana J. Castano stated in a declara-
tion to this court that Krome had 3 cases of laboratory confirmed positives for COVID-19
amongst staff and a detained individual, and that at least 238 detained individuals were exposed
to a confirmed case of COVID-19. (Appx I, Exh. I, at 123-224 ¶ 12.) These 238 individuals who
have been exposed to a person confirmed to have COVID-19 are being placed in “cohorts with
restricted movement.” (Appx I, Exh. I, at 123 ¶ 10.)
225. The day before, investigating from the Miami Herald was released which suggests
that the number of people with the virus is underreported and “ ‘not completely accurate as test-
ing is not conducted on site and detained individuals are sent to an off-site hospital to be tested,’
” according to a federal official interviewed by the Herald. (Appx I, Exh. D, at 41.)
226. The Miami Herald’s April 7, 2020, report also explained that “[f]or weeks — and
as recently as Monday — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has repeatedly told the
Herald that no detainees in their custody in Florida have tested positive for the virus. However,
the agency got around having to disclose that any detainee was sick with COVID-19 because the
detainee was technically no longer on the premises — but rather at a hospital, federal sources
say.” (Appx I, Exh. D, at 40-41)
227. Also, on April 7, 2020, four members of Congress directed a letter to ICE’s Dep-
uty Director Matthew T. Albence, “urg[ing] [him] to significantly limit the number of immi-
grants held in detention and immediately expand [his] agency’s use of alternatives to detention
(ATD) for qualified individuals” so that “[a] mass tragedy at Krome and other ICE facilities in
68
Florida, including Broward Transitional Center and Glades County Detention Center, can be
avoided.” (Appx I, Exh. R, at 342-43.) These members of Congress expressed that they were
“deeply disturbed by ICE’s continued activity to transfer and detain large groups of immigrants
in the midst of a global pandemic, especially at a facility where detainees and employees have
tested positive.” (Appx I, Exh. R, at 342)
228. These four members of Congress also stated that “[i]t is undisputed that jails, pris-
ons, and detention centers are highly vulnerable to COVID-19" due to the fact that “[e]ffective
social distancing is almost impossible and necessary disinfectant is rarely available to detainees,”
and especially so given that the situation in “Krome is particularly alarming in this respect” in
light of reported “overcrowded conditions even prior to the impact of COVID-19.” (Appx I, Exh.
R, at 342.) They also added that “it appears that Krome is not at all prepared to mitigate expo-
sure to COVID-19, or to adequately respond should an outbreak at the facility occur. These is-
sues are only compounded by the fact that COVID-19 has now reached Krome.” (Appx I, Exh.
R, at 342-43)
229. Staff at Krome arrive and leave on a shift basis, and there is limited ability to ad-
equately screen incoming staff for new, asymptomatic infection. Staff generally live in the com-
munities near these facilities—areas where there are confirmed cases of COVID-19.
230. The outbreak at Krome has affected the immigration court housed at the facility
and run by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”). Krome Immigration Court is
accessed through the same lobby as the detention center. Judges, court staff, and both govern-
ment and defense attorneys have expressed concern about their safety and health.
69
231. On March 22, 2020, the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”),
the ICE Professionals Union (“ICE Union”), and the American Immigration Lawyers Associa-
tion (“AILA”), wrote a joint statement demanding that EOIR close all of the immigration courts
nationwide, and stating, among other things, that:
The DOJ’s current response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its spread is disconnected
from the needs and advice of community leaders and scientific experts. The Immigration
Courts are especially vulnerable to the spread of the Coronavirus. Every link in the chain
that brings individuals to the court, from the use of public transportation, to security lines,
crowded elevators, hallways, the cramped cubicle spaces of court staff, inadequate wait-
ing room facilities in the courthouses, and scant sanitizing resources at the courts, all
place lives at risk. Individuals who in many instances have waited years for a hearing
may also feel pressured to appear – even if they feel sick, for fear of being ordered de-
ported.
(Appx I, Exh. S, at 345-47, 346)
232. On March 26, 2020, the NAIJ, the ICE Union, AILA, and a multitude of other or-
ganizations wrote a letter directly to Attorney General Barr demanding the closure of all immi-
gration courts nationwide, and stating that “detained courts must also be closed to in-person
hearings in order to minimize the spread of the virus, slow the rate of new infections, and to
avoid overwhelming local resources.” (Appx I, Exh. T, at 348-51)
233. On March 30, 2020, the NAIJ issued an additional statement. The statement be-
gins by quoting a “current immigration judge who is a U.S. military veteran” stating:
I don't say this lightly, but EOIR has demonstrated that they need to be gutted and rebuilt
from the ashes. I've never witnessed an utter lack of concern for people like I have here.
In my former life, we treated captured Taliban and ISIS with more humanity. Moreover,
I've never seen worse leadership. A crisis usually brings good and bad to the light. We
have nothing but darkness.
(Appx I, Exh. U, at 352-56, 352)
70
234. That same day, Monday, March 30, 2020, at 7:50 a.m., without explanation,
EOIR suddenly announced that the Krome Immigration Court was closed for hearings for two
days. (Appx I, Exh. V, at 357.)
235. To date, there is yet to be a public explanation for why the Krome hearings were
cancelled so abruptly. There are reports that the judges and court staff at Krome feared exposure
to the virus and that the abrupt closure occurred to permit cleaning of the court facilities.
236. The Krome Immigration Court remains closed at this time.
Glades County Detention Center
237. Glades is a county jail in Moorehaven, Florida. It can house roughly 500 ICE de-
tained men and women at a time. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 162.) Detained individuals in ICE custody
are split amongst six housing units, or “pods,” four designated for the men and two for the
women. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 162.) Depending on the facility’s capacity, pods may contain a mix
of individuals in ICE custody, custody of the U.S. Marshals, or under Glades County custody.
(Appx I, Exh. K, at 140.)
238. The cells where the detained individuals sleep are small, and there are six de-
tained individuals in each cell, with three bunk beds that are placed close together. See Dairon
Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Tahimi Perez ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. W, at
139-44); Franklin Ramon Gonzalez ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50). The detained individuals
are only able to maintain about one-meter separation in their cells when they sleep. See Gerardo
Vargas Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-56); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh.
Z, at 157-62).
71
239. Many detained individuals have experienced significant turnover of cellmates,
having up to six or seven new cellmates since their detention in Glades. See Dairon Barredo
Sanchez Dec. ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at
151-56); Tahimi Perez ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. W, at 139-44); Franklin Ramon Gonzalez ¶ 6 (Appx II,
Exh. X, at 145-50).
240. There are approximately 95 detained individuals in a pod at a time. See Dairon
Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 17 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 7
(Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62). The pods are so crowded, that social distancing at a safe six feet
distance is impossible, especially with the constant influx of detained individuals. See Dairon
Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶ 6, 8 (Appx II,
Exh. Y, at 151-56); Irvin Mendoza Silis Dec. ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. AA, at 163-67); Francisco
Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62); Tahimi Perez ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. W, at
139-44); Franklin Ramon Gonzalez ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50).
241. All detained individuals in a pod also share communal bathrooms and showers,
which do not have six feet of distance between them, making it impossible to maintain a safe so-
cial distance even while using the restroom or bathing. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 13
(Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-56); Franklin
Ramon Gonzalez ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50).
242. Unlike BTC or Krome, there is no cafeteria. Detained individuals eat in the com-
munal seating area in their pod, known as “satellite feeding.” (Appx I, Exh. K, at 162.) The ta-
bles used for eating and daily living usually seat four people, but due to overcrowding, they are
now seating five to six people at a time. See Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-
72
56). As a result, there is only about 40 to 50 centimeters of separation between detained individu-
als when they are eating at the tables. See Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at
157-62).
243. New detained individuals arrive at Glades every day, some already exhibiting flu
like symptoms like coughing. See Roseline Ostine Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. BB, at 168-72). There
is no indication that new detained individuals are tested for COVID-19 or routinely quarantined
before being placed in the pod with the rest of the detained individuals. Id (Appx II, Exh. BB, at
168-72); Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Francisco Rivero Vale-
ron Dec. ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62); Tahimi Perez Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. W, at 139-
44).
244. In all six pods, individuals share many common spaces and touch the same sur-
faces. All six units and the segregation unit share a common law library. In each pod, there are
only four phones available per pod that everyone must share, and people must also share tablets.
Similarly, all detained individuals in the segregation unit share the same two phones.
245. There are no sanitizing wipes or cleaning supplies available to wipe down the
phones in between calls, therefore the detained individuals are forced to use just a wet paper
towel in an attempt to clean the phones before and after use. See Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec.
¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62).
246. Contractors and detained individuals have continuously reported unsanitary physi-
cal conditions, lack of medical care, and physical mistreatment. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 162.) Glades
has failed to substantively remedy these poor conditions.
73
247. Unsanitary bathrooms are a persistent problem. The jail forbids the use of bleach
for cleaning the bathrooms. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 162.) Shampoo is typically used as a substitute
for soap. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 162.) There is mold in the bathrooms. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 162.);
(Appx I, Exh. W, at 367-68) (DHS Office of Inspector Gen. Report OIG-18-32, noting lack of
cleanliness, limited hygienic supplies, and potentially unsafe food handling).
248. There have been reports of inedible food provided to detained individuals. (Appx
I, Exh. K, at 163.) The “drinking water has a yellowish hue and an odd taste.” (Appx, Exh. K, at
163).
249. The spread of cough, flu, and other respiratory conditions in the dorms have been
attributed to the unsanitary conditions. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 162.) Even before the COVID-19
pandemic, Glades failed to provide adequate medical care to detained women and men. (Appx I,
Exh. E, at 58-60; 80-81.)72
250. Glades only has one doctor in the facility, who is only available four times a
week. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 163.) Critical medical care is routinely delayed—sometimes for
months—or denied outright. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 141-42; 163-64). When medical requests are
finally addressed, individuals report not being properly treated or not treated at all. (Appx I, Exh.
K, at 163.) Providing ibuprofen or Tylenol is commonly used as a blanket solution to any and all
medical issues. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 163.) For individuals with chronic medical conditions, it can
72
See also Legal Aid Service of Broward County, Complaint and Request for Investigation
Glades Detention Center in Moore Haven, Florida Physical Abuse, Inappropriate Use of Segre-
gation, Denial of Medical and Mental Health Care and Lack of Attorney Access (January 8,
2018), https://media.law.miami.edu/clinics/pdf/2018/OIG-complaint-against-glades.pdf.
74
take months of grievances and sick calls to receive diagnostic testing or to see a specialist off-
site. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 142.)
251. Because Glades fails to meet detained individual’s medical needs under normal
circumstances, the jail is ill-suited to provide adequate medical treatment amidst the COVID-19
pandemic. This failure is so severe that it cannot be remedied quickly to respond to COVID-19,
especially in a time when healthcare resources are in high demand.
252. For years, detained women and men have reported “that officers routinely misuse
pepper spray, use excessive force and racial slurs, and overuse isolation in a retaliatory manner.”
(Appx I, Exh. K, at 164-65). One detained individual with respiratory problems reported being
pepper sprayed in an isolation cell, which triggered an asthma attack. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 165.)
The lack of ventilation and the unsanitary conditions further aggravated his respiratory difficul-
ties. (Id.)
253. Detention center staff have failed to train detained individuals about hygiene
measures designed to limit the spread of COVID-19. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 30
(Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-56); Francisco
Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62); Franklin Ramon Gonzalez ¶ 15 (Appx II,
Exh. X, at 145-50). The only information detained individuals receive about COVID-19 is from
the television or posters on the wall. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 30, 33 (Appx II, Exh.
V, at 131-38).
254. Detained individuals are now being provided with half the amount of soap they
are normally provided with, equaling one 4-ounce bottle per week, when they were previously
provided with two bottles per week. See Roseline Ostine Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. BB, at 168-72);
75
Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62); Conlin Dec. (Appx I, Exh. J, at
126-30) Detained individuals are forced to ration this small portion of soap, one bottle, to cover
showering and hand washing for an entire week. Id; Franklin Ramon Gonzalez ¶ 13 (Appx II,
Exh. X, at 145-50).
255. The facility is not providing hand sanitizer, and there is none available for pur-
chase in commissary. See Roseline Ostine Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. BB, at 168-72); Francisco
Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 7-9 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62); Tahimi Perez Dec. ¶ 14-15 (Appx II,
Exh. W, at 139-44); Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec. ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50).
256. Detained individuals are not provided with masks or gloves. See Roseline Ostine
Dec. ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. BB, at 168-72); Tahimi Perez Dec. ¶¶ 8, 14 (Appx II, Exh. W, at 139-
44); Conlin Dec. ¶ 17 (Appx I, Exh. J, at 126-30). Even when detained individuals attempt to
make their own masks out of their personal belongings, such as t-shirts, the guards tell them that
they are not allowed to cover their faces with anything. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 19
(Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec. ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50).
257. There are no gloves or masks available for purchase in commissary. See Dairon
Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 29 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶ 11 (Appx II,
Exh. Y, at 151-56); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 7, 9 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62); Franklin
Ramon Gonzalez Dec. ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50).
258. Although some Glades staff have recently started wearing masks, the majority of
the Glades staff do not use masks or gloves. See Roseline Ostine Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. BB, at
168-72); Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 25 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶
76
14 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-56); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-
62).
259. Although the staff are not using the proper protective gear, they still enter the liv-
ing units, touch the detained individuals, their personal belongings, and the food trays. See
Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 25, 34 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶ 15
(Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-56); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62).
The detained individuals have not witnessed staff washing their hands. See Dairon Barredo
Sanchez Dec. ¶ 31 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II,
Exh. Z, at 157-62).
260. Many staff at Glades live in the surrounding communities where there are con-
firmed cases of COVID-19. Staff’s failure to use proper protective gear makes it all the more
likely that COVID-19 will be spread from the staff to detained individuals.
261. Detained individuals prepare meals for the entire detained population despite the
lack of masks and gloves, and many of the detained individuals preparing the food have been ex-
hibiting signs of sickness, such as coughing. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 22 (Appx II,
Exh. V, at 131-38); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62). The de-
tained individuals also clean the facility, and they do not wear gloves or masks while they clean.
See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 23 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Francisco Rivero Valeron
Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62). The walls of the facility are full of mold, so it is not clear
how often or well they are being cleaned. See Irvin Mendoza Silis Dec. ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. AA, at
163-67).
77
262. Many detained individuals in the pods are exhibiting flu-like symptoms, includ-
ing coughing and sneezing. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38);
Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62); Tahimi Perez Dec. ¶ 11 (Appx
II, Exh. W, at 139-44); Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50). Some
detained individuals are coughing up blood. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II,
Exh. V, at 131-38).
263. Despite these flu-like symptoms, there have been no known COVID-19 tests done
in the Glades facility. See Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶¶ 16, 17 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-56); Irvin
Mendoza Silis Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. AA, at 163-67); Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec. ¶ 17
(Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50).
264. This remains true even among the population of detained individuals with medical
vulnerabilities, including those with hypertension, diastolic heart failure, COPD, obesity, asthma,
diabetes, and HIV. See Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶ 17 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-56); Irvin Mendoza
Silis Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. AA, at 163-67); See Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 13 (Appx II,
Exh. Z, at 157-62); Tahimi Perez Dec. ¶ 17 (Appx II, Exh. W, at 139-44); Franklin Ramon Gon-
zalez Dec. ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50).
265. The medically vulnerable are not being protected by being moved away from the
general population or from those who are exhibiting flu-like symptoms. See Gerardo Vargas
Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-56); Tahimi Perez Dec. ¶ 18 (Appx II, Exh. W, at 139-44).
266. As of a couple days ago, 12 detained individuals were put into a
“quarantine pod.” Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec. ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50).
78
267. Detained individuals are not able to see the medical staff in a timely manner, and
when they are able to see the medical staff, their temperature is not being taken. See Dairon
Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38).
268. One detained individual was advised by a nurse that he had the flu, but another
nurse informed him that he did not. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 28 (Appx II, Exh. V, at
131-38).
Broward Transitional Center
269. BTC is an immigration detention center in Pompano Beach, Florida for “non-
criminal and low security” detained individuals operated by a private contractor, the for-profit
prison corporation The GEO Group, Inc. (“GEO”). (Appx I, Exh. K at 153.) GEO has its head-
quarters in Boca Raton, Florida and is ICE’s largest contractor, holding more than $400 million
in contracts with ICE.73
270. Since it opened in 2002, “Broward has steadily grown in population capacity from
150 detained women to 700 detained women and men.” (Appx I, Exh. K at 153.). There are 595
beds for men, and 105 for women. GEO’s contract with ICE includes a 500-bed quota, meaning
that ICE is contractually obligated to pay for 500 beds regardless if they are being used.74 (Appx
I, Exh. K at 153.)
73
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/boca-ratons-geo-group-is-ices-top-contractor-
10504265.
74
Banking on Detention: Local Lockup Quota & the Immigrant Dragnet, Detention Watch
Network & Center for Constitutional Rights (2015), https://www.detentionwatchnet-
work.org/sites/default/files/reports/DWN%20CCR%20Banking%20on%20Detention%20Re-
port.pdf.
79
271. Each room in BTC has three sets of bunkbeds—housing up to six individuals per
room that generally measures 10’ x 12’. All individuals in the room share a toilet, a shower and a
sink. Moreover, all 700 individuals share common areas, such as the recreation area, phones, the
law library, seating areas, and the cafeteria. The cafeteria holds 300 people per shift for three
meals.
272. GEO’s operation of BTC has been dogged by complaints including denial of med-
ical and mental health care, using detained individuals for unpaid or cheap labor, expired and rot-
ten food, and abusive staff. The DHS Office of Inspector General has repeatedly concluded that
ICE fails to hold detention facility contractors accountable for meeting performance standards
required to ensure humane conditions. DHS Office of Inspector Gen. Report OIG-19-18 (Appx I,
Exh. X, at 377-412); DHS Office of Inspector Gen. Report OIG-18-67 (Appx I, Exh. Y, at 413-
46).
273. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, critical medical care at BTC has been rou-
tinely delayed—sometimes for months—or denied outright. (Appx I, Exh. K at 141-43, 153.)
Contractors and detained individuals have continuously reported inadequate medical and mental
health care. In March 2012, an inspection documented its failure to transfer detained individuals
to medical and mental health providers in a timely manner.75 Eight years later, BTC has failed to
remedy this issue. Detained individuals report having to submit multiple medical requests before
being medical—typically, only to be set back to their dorm with aspirin. (Appx I, Exh. K at 153.)
75
Office of Detention Oversight Compliance Inspection Broward Transitional Center, U.S.
Department of Homeland Securty (2012), https://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/odo-compliance-in-
spections/2012browardtransitioncenter-pompanobeach-fl-feb28-mar1-2012.pdf.
80
274. At BTC, individuals with chronic medical conditions reported tremendous diffi-
culties receiving necessary accommodations for their health problems, such as dietary accommo-
dations. (Appx I, Exh. K at 143.) One individual remembered a man with diabetes losing a finger
as a result of the inadequate medical care at BTC. (Appx I, Exh. K at 143.)
275. During the summer of 2019, there was a mumps outbreak at BTC in which de-
tained individuals were quarantined.76 A couple months after, an outbreak of an unknown stom-
ach illness affected 16% of the facility’s population.77
276. Now, with the COVID-19 outbreak, BTC has placed some detained individuals in
what it is calling quarantine. These detained individuals are not in an actual quarantine because
they are grouped together. See Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. CC, at 173-79);
Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85); Rosas Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh.
EE, at 186-90); Sonay Funez Dec. at ¶ 17 (Appx II, Exh. FF, at 191-97).
277. This “quarantined” group nonetheless uses the general population’s communal
space at BTC when the general population is not using this space. As a result, the quarantine
group touches the telephones, tables, tablets, and chairs. See Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 13 (Appx
II, Exh. CC, at 173-79); Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85).
76
Letter to ICE and Wardens from AI Justice, SPLC, AAAJ, and project South (Mar. 13,
2020), https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/ltr_to_ice_and_wardens_re_covid-19_-
_2020.03_-_final.pdf
77
Austen Erblat, Stomach bug hits 115 detainees at immigration center, South Florida Sun
Sentinel (Nov. 5, 2019), https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/pompano-beach/fl-ne-
pompano-beach-flu-outbreak-immigration-detention-center-20191105-
xopjvimk4fgebbzcts7ausbdwu-story.html.
81
278. Detained men at BTC are sleeping in cells with five to six individuals in bunk-
beds, which are not six feet apart. See Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-
203); Sosa Fletes Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08); Sontay Funez Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II,
Exh. FF, at 191-97); Rosas Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. EE, at 186-90); Betancourt Dec.
at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85); Ferreira Borges Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14). This
sleeping arrangement makes it impossible to remain six feet apart and practice social distancing.
See Sosa Fletes Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08); Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx II,
Exh. CC, at 173-79); Rosas Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. EE, at 186-90); Betancourt Dec.
at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85); Ferreira Borges Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14).
279. The detained individuals are close to each together when they eat because the
chairs are attached to the floor, they have to sit across from each other on the table, and there is
not enough room to remain six feet apart. See Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at
198-203); Sosa Fletes Dec. at ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08); Ferreira Borges Dec. at ¶ 7
(Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14); Rosas Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. EE, at 186-90); Rodas
Pedro Dec. at ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. JJ, at 215-19). Detained individuals wait in line very close to
each other while waiting to enter the dining hall. See Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh.
GG, at 198-203); Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85).
280. Some detained individuals are experiencing flu like symptoms, including cough-
ing, congestion and difficulty breathing. See Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. CC, at
173-79); Sontay Funez Dec. at ¶ 15 (Appx II, Exh. FF, at 191-97); Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 10
(Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203).
82
281. Despite having symptoms, detained individuals have difficulty being able to see
the medical staff in a timely manner. See Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-
203). One detainee with an unbearable cough submitted a written request, went twice to the med-
ical office, and then complained to a guard, before he was allowed to see a doctor. See Valera
Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203).
282. There has been no known test of COVID-19 done in the BTC facilities. See Sosa
Fletes Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08); Sonay Funez Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. FF,
at 191-97).
283. A recently transferred detained person reported having entered BTC with a bad
cold and cough, but was never tested for COVID-19 or isolated from the general population. See
Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203); Soares Fletes Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II,
Exh. HH, at 204-08); Ferreira Borges Dec. at ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14).
284. Detained individuals have trouble accessing medical attention, including for seri-
ous chronic conditions such as asthma. See Borges Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14); Rodas
Pedro Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. JJ, at 215-19). Medical staff have become so overwhelmed with
the number of sick men detained in the facility that one doctor gave an individual his entire bot-
tle of blood pressure medicine to take on his own, since she no longer had time to dispense his
pill regularly. See Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203).
285. At least 40 men have been brought into BTC in the past few weeks. See Borges
Dec. at ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14). New detained people have been placed immediately into
shared rooms without being isolated first. See Borges Dec. at ¶14 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14);
Rosas Cardenas Dec. at ¶12 (Appx II, Exh. EE, at 186-90). One group of new arrivals came
83
about one week ago from Krome, which already had confirmed COVID-19 cases, and they were
placed with the general population of BTC. See Betancourt Dec. at ¶13 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-
85). Individuals detained at BTC were told the infected person at Krome was sent home. See
Rodas Pedro Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. JJ, at 215-19).
286. There are no precautions taken to protect those who are medically vulnerable to
COVID-19. See Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 18 (Appx II, Exh. CC, at 173-79); Betancourt Dec. at ¶
11 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85); Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 15 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203).
287. Detained individuals prepare the food and clean at BTC. One detained person
who previously prepared the food at BTC reported having flu like symptoms. See Bibiano Soares
Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. CC, at 173-79). Detained individuals who work in the kitchen do not
always wear masks when preparing the food and are not taught COVID-19 hygiene measures. Id
at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. CC, at 173-79); Rodas Pedro Dec. at ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. JJ, at 215-19).
288. Detained individuals have not observed greater efforts to clean in response to
COVID-19. Rodas Pedro Dec. at ¶ 15 (Appx II, Exh. JJ, at 215-19). Most detained individuals
are not provided with masks or gloves when they clean common areas. See Valera Ramirez Dec.
at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203); Sosa Fletes Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08).
When asked to clean their cells, only one pair of gloves is provided. See Sonay Funez Dec. at ¶
10 (Appx II, Exh. FF, at 191-97). When masks and gloves are available, they are only for clean-
ing, otherwise there is no access to gloves and masks. See Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh.
DD, at 18-85).
289. BTC staff not using protective gear enter living facilities and use their bare hands
to touch detained individuals and their personal belongings. See Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 15
84
(Appx II, Exh. CC, at 173-79); Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85); Ferreira
Borges Dec. at ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14), Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at
198-203); Sosa Fletez Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08); Sonay Funez Dec. at ¶ 17
(Appx II, Exh. FF, at 191-97). Borges Dec. at ¶13 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14). Recently staff have
used their bare hands to conduct pat downs, to give men high fives, and to touch their phones,
tables, and exercise equipment. See Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶9 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203);
Borges Dec. at ¶13 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14). The detained individuals have not seen staff
washing their hands. See Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 15 (Appx II, Exh. CC, at 173-79); Sosa Fletes
Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08).
290. Only some of the BTC staff have begun to use mask and gloves recently. See Bib-
iano Soares Dec. at ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. CC, at 173-79); Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh.
DD, at 18-85); Ferreira Borges Dec. at ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14), Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶
9 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203); Rosas Cardinas Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. EE, at 186-90),
Sonay Funez Dec. at ¶ 17 (Appx II, Exh. FF, at 191-97). Guards wear gloves when searching de-
tainees, but do not always use them otherwise. See Rodas Pedro Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. JJ, at
215-19).
291. Detained individuals receive only a small allocation of soap each week, which of-
ten runs out. See Sosa Fletes Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08); Sonay Funez Dec. at ¶
11 (Appx II, Exh. FF, at 191-97); Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203);
Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85); Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh.
CC, at 173-79). This small amount is supposed to last them for showers and hand washing, how-
ever detained individuals reported it is not enough. See Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II,
85
Exh. CC, at 173-79); Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85); Ferreira Borges Dec.
at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14); Sosa Fletes Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08). They
have not been given hand sanitizer. See Rodas Pedro Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. JJ, at 215-19).
292. Detained individuals have not been given any formal education about hygiene
measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19. See Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 19 (Appx II, Exh.
CC, at 173-79); Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85); Ferreira Borges Dec. at ¶
16 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14), Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203);
Rosas Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. EE, at 186-90); Sosa Fletes Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh.
HH, at 204-08); Sonay Funez Dec. at ¶ 17 (Appx II, Exh. FF, at 191-97); Rodas Pedro Dec. at ¶
10 (Appx II, Exh. JJ, at 215-19). The only information they have received is from watching TV
and posters on the wall. See Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203); Rosas
Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. EE, at 186-90).
293. Detained individuals have no access to masks or gloves, even from the commis-
sary. Borges Dec. at ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14); Betancourt Dec. at ¶10 (Appx II, Exh. DD,
at 18-85).
294. BTC staff rotate in and out of BTC on a regular basis. Staff generally live in the
communities near BTC—areas where there many confirmed cases of COVID-19.
295. BTC has a history of outbreaks of contagious illnesses. In November of 2019,
there was a stomach flu outbreak at BTC during which 115 detained persons became ill.78
78
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/pompano-beach/fl-ne-pompano-beach-flu-
outbreak-immigration-detention-center-20191105-xopjvimk4fgebbzcts7ausbdwu-story.html
86
296. On March 17, 2020, detained persons at BTC were subjected to a 5-hour water
stoppage, during which they had no access to water to wash their hands, bathe, or use the toilet.79
ICE’s Alternatives to Detention Program
297. For over 15 years, DHS/ICE has sought and obtained congressional funding for
its Alternatives to Detention (“ATD”) program, which uses supervised release, case manage-
ment, and monitoring of individuals instead of detention.80 ICE has repeatedly told Congress that
the ATD program increases ICE’s operational effectiveness and individual compliance with re-
lease conditions.
79
https://www.wlrn.org/post/coronavirus-live-updates-two-broward-election-poll-workers-
test-postive-covid-19#stream/0
80
ICE’s current ATD program is called Intensive Supervision Appearance Program III (ISAP
III). The program features different levels of case management including in-person or telephonic
meetings, unannounced home visits, scheduled office visits, and court and meeting alerts. Some
are also enrolled in technology-based monitoring including telephonic monitoring, GPS monitor-
ing via ankle bracelet, and smart phone application monitoring called SmartLink that uses facial
recognition and location monitoring via GPS. The private contractor that operates the program
for ICE is BI, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of The GEO Group, Inc. See CRS Report R45804,
Immigration: Alternatives to Detention (ATD) Programs, (Jul. 8, 2019). On March 23, 2020,
DHS awarded BI, Inc. a 5-year $2.2 billion contract for continued ISAP support.
https://beta.sam.gov/opp/2479131ff88f405999e126b52ff105f5/view
87
298. The DHS FY2021 Congressional Budget Justification for ICE states that it costs
$125.06 per day to jail an adult immigration in ICE custody. The average cost per ATD partici-
pant is $4.43 per day. The DHS FY2021 funding request seeks to support 120,000 daily partici-
pants in ATD.81
299. A 2014 GAO Report found that 95% of those on full-service ATD (those that in-
clude case management) appear for their final hearings.82 According to 2017 contract data, su-
pervision coupled with some case management results in a more than 99% appearance rate for all
immigration court hearings, and a more than 91% appearance rate for final hearings.83
300. As of April 4, 2020, ICE has 89,851 individuals enrolled in ATD, including 5,057
in the Miami area.84
81
DHS/ICE FY2021 Congressional Budget Justification, at Operations & Support 132, 171,
173, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/u.s._immigration_and_customs_en-
forcement.pdf. Due to court backlogs and delays for those who are non-detained, ATD partici-
pants are enrolled for a longer period of time than the period of time that individuals remain in
detention. However, even considering the average length of stay in detention and the average
length of time in ATD, taxpayers are paying an average of $4,000 more per individual detained
than those released on ATD.
82
GAO-15-26, Alternatives to Detention, at 30 (Nov. 2014), available at
https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666911.pdf.
83
The Real Alternatives to Detention (June 2019), available at https://www.womensrefugee-
commission.org/images/zdocs/The-Real-Alternatives-to-Detention-June-2019-FINAL-v-2.pdf.
84
ICE website, Detention Management, https://www.ice.gov/detention-management#tab2.
88
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
301. The Due Process Clause provides that no person shall “be deprived of life, lib-
erty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. Its protections extend to
every person within the nation’s borders regardless of immigration status. Mathews v. Diaz, 426
U.S. 67, 77, (1976) (“Even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or tran-
sitory is entitled to that constitutional protection.”).
A. Due Process Right to Reasonably Safe Non-Punitive Civil Detention
302. When the government takes a person into custody and detains him against the
person’s will, the Constitution imposes upon the government a duty to assume responsibility for
that detainee’s safety and general wellbeing. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 32 (1993).
Under the Eighth Amendment, the Government must provide criminal detainees with basic hu-
man needs, including reasonable safety. Id.
303. The government violates the Eighth Amendment if it confines a criminal detainee
in unsafe conditions. Id. at 33.
304. When the government detains a person for the violation of an immigration law,
the person is a civil detainee, even if he has a prior criminal conviction. See Zadvydas v. Davis,
533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001).
305. As civil detainees, Petitioners are entitled to more considerate treatment than
criminal detainees, whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish. See Marsh v. Fla.
Dep’t of Corr., 330 F. App’x 179, 182 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S.
307, 322 (1982)).
89
306. The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause prohibits punishment of people in civil
custody. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.16 (1979); Magluta v. Samples, 375 F.3d 1269,
1273 (11th Cir. 2004); Hamm v. Dekalb Cty., 774 F.2d 1567, 1572 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing In-
graham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 671 n. 40 (1977)).
307. To establish that a particular condition or restriction of detention constitutes im-
permissible punishment, a petitioner must show either (1) an expressed intent to punish; or (2)
lack of a reasonable relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose, from which an intent to
punish may be inferred. See Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 538. Absent an explicit intention to punish, a
court must apply a two-part test: “First, a court must ask whether any ‘legitimate goal’ was
served by the prison conditions. Second, it must ask whether the conditions are ‘reasonably re-
lated’ to that goal.” Jacoby v. Baldwin Cty., 835 F.3d 1338, 1345 (11th Cir. 2016). “[I]f condi-
tions are so extreme that less harsh alternatives are easily available, those conditions constitute
‘punishment.’” Telfair v. Gilberg, 868 F.Supp. 1396, 1412 (S.D. Ga. 1994) (citing Wolfish, 441
U.S. at 538-39 n.20).
308. “[W]hen the State takes a person into its custody and holds him there against his
will, the Constitution imposes upon it a corresponding duty to assume some responsibility for his
safety and general well-being.” DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep’t. of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189,
199-200 (1989). The government must provide detained individuals with basic necessities, such
as adequate medical care, food, clothing, and shelter; the failure to provide these necessities vio-
lates due process. Hamm, 774 F.2d at 1573; Cook ex rel. Estate of Tessier v. Sheriff of Monroe
Cty., 402 F.3d 1092, 1115 (11th Cir. 2005).
90
309. At a minimum, the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause prohibits Respondents’
deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm that would rise to the level of an
Eighth Amendment violation in the post-conviction criminal context. Revere v. Mass. Gen.
Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983) (“[T]he due process rights of a [detainee] are at least as great as
the Eighth Amendment protections available to a convicted prisoner.”); see also Hale v.
Tallapoosa Cty., 50 F. 3d 1579, 1582 n.4 (11th Cir. 1995).
310. To demonstrate that Respondents are acting with deliberate indifference, Petition-
ers must show exposure to a substantial risk of serious harm of which Respondents are aware and
have disregarded. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 837-38 (1994); Marbury v. Warden,
936 F.3d 1227, 1233 (11th Cir. 2019); Hale, 50 F.3d at 1582.
311. The government violates the Eighth Amendment when it “ignore[s] a condition of
confinement that is sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering the next
week or month or year,” including “exposure of inmates to a serious, communicable disease,”
even when “the complaining inmate shows no serious current symptoms.” Helling, 509 U.S. at
33; see also id. at 34 (citing with approval Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1300 (5th Cir. 1974),
which held that prisoners were entitled to relief under the Eighth Amendment when they showed,
inter alia, the mingling of “inmates with serious contagious diseases” with other prison inmates).
312. Thus, the harm that Petitioners fear—i.e., that their confinement will result in a
COVID-19 infection that will seriously injure and possibly kill them—need not become a reality
to establish a violation of their constitutional rights. Courts do not require a plaintiff to “await a
91
tragic event” before seeking relief from a condition of confinement that unconstitutionally en-
dangers them. See Helling, 509 U.S. at 33 (holding prisoner’s Eight Amendment claim could be
based upon possible future harm to health, as well as present harm).
313. “Nor does it matter that some inmates may not be affected by the condition, and
that the harm is thus, in a sense, only potential harm. The Court has found an Eighth Amendment
violation ‘even though it was not alleged that the likely harm would occur immediately and even
though the possible infection might not affect all of those exposed.’” Tittle v. Jefferson Cty.
Comm’n, 10 F.3d 1535, 1543 (11th Cir. 1994) (quoting Helling, 509 U.S. at 33).
B. The Accardi Doctrine
314. When the government has promulgated “[r]egulations with the force and effect of
law,” those regulations “supplement the bare bones” of federal statutes. United States ex rel. Ac-
cardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 266, 268 (1954) (reversing in immigration case after review
of warrant for deportation). Agencies must follow their own “existing valid regulations,” even
where government officers have broad discretion, such as in the area of immigration. Id. at 268;
see also Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 235 (1974) (“[I]t is incumbent upon agencies to follow
their own procedures . . . even where [they] are possibly more rigorous than otherwise would be
required.”); Battle v. FAA, 393 F.3d 1330, 1336 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (“Accardi has come to stand for
the proposition that agencies may not violate their own rules and regulations to the prejudice of
others.”). Breaches of Accardi’s rule constitute violations of both the Administrative Procedures
Act (“APA”) and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
92
315. While violations of “internal agency procedures” do not always require a remedy,
Accardi’s rule applies with full force when “the rights or interests of the objecting party” are “af-
fected.” Monitlla v. INS, 926 F.2d 162, 167 (2d. Cir. 1991) (citing cases) (“Accardi doctrine is
premised on fundamental notions of fair play underlying the concept of due process”); see also
Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 545-46 (6th Cir. 2004) (noting that an Accardi vio-
lation may be a due process violation, and the government’s action may be set aside pursuant to
the APA); Sameena, Inc. v. U.S. Air Force, 147 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 1998) (“An agency’s
failure to follow its own regulations . . . may result in a violation of an individual’s constitutional
right to due process.”).
C. State Created Danger
316. The Due Process Clause “imposes a duty on state actors to protect or care for citi-
zens in when the state affirmatively places a particular individual in a position of danger the indi-
vidual would not otherwise have faced.” Gregory v. City of Rogers, Ark, 974 F.2d 1006, 1010
(8th Cir. 1992) (en banc).
317. The government violates an individual’s right to due process when it (1) “affirma-
tively place[s] [the] individual in danger,” (2) by “acting with ‘deliberate indifference to [a]
known or obvious danger.’” Kennedy v. City of Ridgefield, 439 F.3d 1055, 1062 (9th Cir. 2006)
(quoting Munger v. City of Glasgow, 227 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2000); L.W. v. Grubbs, 92
F.3d 894, 900 (9th Cir. 1996)); Jones v. Phyfer, 761 F.2d 642 (11th Cir. 1985), reh'g denied, 768
F.2d 1353 (11th Cir. 1985) (a constitutional right to protection by the state exists when there is a
showing that the victim faces a special danger distinguishable from that of the public at large).
93
318. “A duty of protection arises where the state has a custodial relationship with the
individual, arising from such circumstances as incarceration in prison or involuntary commit-
ment in a mental institution.” Davis v. Carter, 555 F.3d 979, 982 n.2 (11th Cir. 2009). The only
relationships that automatically give rise to a governmental duty to protect individuals from harm
under the substantive due process clause are custodial relationships through which the govern-
ment deprives individuals of their liberty and thus of their ability to take care of themselves. See
White v. Lemacks, 183 F.3d 1253, 1257 (11th Cir. 1999).
319. The government acts with deliberate indifference to a known or obvious danger
when it recognizes an unreasonable risk and actually knowingly exposes the petitioner. An un-
reasonable risk includes future harm caused by conditions of confinement. See Helling v. McKin-
ney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993).
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT ONE - ACCARDI DOCTRINE (FIFTH AMENDMENT/APA) – VIOLATION OF

DETENTION STANDARDS
320. Petitioners repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation con-
tained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
321. Under the Accardi doctrine, due process and the basic principle of administrative
law dictate that rules promulgated by a federal agency regulating the rights and interests of oth-
ers are controlling upon the agency. That doctrine is premised on the fundamental notion of fair
play underlying the concept of due process.
322. The Accardi doctrine applies with particular force when “the rights of individuals
are affected.” Morton, 415 U.S. at 235.
94
323. Krome, BTC and Glades are all subject to National Detention Standards that are
issued by ICE, which set forth the medical care that must be provided to individuals in immigra-
tion detention. Both Krome and BTC are subject to ICE’s 2011 Performance-Based National De-
tention Standards (“PBNDS”). See (Appx I, Exh. N, at 253.)85 Glades is subject to ICE’s Na-
tional Detention Standards (”NDS”). (Appx. I, Exh. K, at 152, 156.) The current governing ver-
sion of the NDS is the 2019 National Detention Standards for Non-Dedicated Facilities.86
324. Section 4.3(II)(10) of the PBNDS requires that “Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) guidelines for the prevention and control of infectious and communicable dis-
eases shall be followed.” (Appx, Exh. N, at 253.) The PBNDS also provides that “[f]acilities
shall comply with current and future plans implemented by federal, state or local authorities ad-
dressing specific public health issues including communicable disease reporting requirements.”
(Appx, Exh. N, at 256-57.) Similarly, section 1.1(I) of the NDS, covered “facilit[ies] will operate
in accordance with all applicable regulations and codes, such as those of . . . the Centers for Dis-
ease Control and Prevention (CDC).” (Appx I, Exh. O, at 304).87
325. Respondents have failed to follow their duty to comply with the PBNDS and
NDS, which in turn require compliance with CDC guidelines and federal, state and local laws.
Respondents have neither reduced the population of Krome, Glades, and BTC. Nor have they
done anything to ensure social distancing and proper hygiene.
85
Full copy available at: https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-stand-
ards/2011/pbnds2011r2016.pdf].
86
Supersession noted at: https://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2000.
87
Full copy available at: https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-standards/2019/nds2019.pdf.
95
326. Respondents have failed to comply with the CDC guidelines. Respondents have
not “[e]nsure[d] that sufficient stocks of hygiene supplies, cleaning supplies, PPE, and medical
supplies . . . are on hand.” Compare CDC Guidance at 7 (Appx I, Exh. F, at 54); with Declara-
tions of Individuals Detained at all three facilities: Krome (Warsane Dec., Hasan Dec., Farah
Dec., Arrak Dec.); Glades (Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec., Tahimi Perez Dec., Franklin Ramon
Gonzalez Dec., Gerardo Vargas Dec., and Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec.); and BTC (Valera
Ramirez Dec., Sosa Fletes Dec., Sontay Funez Dec., Rosas Cardenas Dec., Betancourt Dec.
Ferreira Borges Dec., and Bibiano Soares Dec) (Appx II).
327. Respondents have not implemented the recommended cleaning and disinfecting
practices. Compare CDC Guidance at 9 (Appx I, Exh. F, at 56); with Declarations of Individuals
Detained at all three facilities: Krome (Warsane Dec., Hasan Dec., Farah Dec., Arrak Dec.);
Glades (Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec., Tahimi Perez Dec., Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec.,
Gerardo Vargas Dec., and Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec.); and BTC (Valera Ramirez Dec., Sosa
Fletes Dec., Sontay Funez Dec., Rosas Cardenas Dec., Betancourt Dec. Ferreira Borges Dec.,
and Bibiano Soares Dec) (Appx II).
328. Respondents have not implemented the recommended hygiene practices. Com-
pare CDC Guidance at 10 (Appx I, Exh. F, at 57); with Declarations of Individuals Detained at
all three facilities: Krome (Warsane Dec., Hasan Dec., Farah Dec., Arrak Dec.); Glades (Dairon
Barredo Sanchez Dec., Tahimi Perez Dec., Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec., Gerardo Vargas
Dec., and Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec.); and BTC (Valera Ramirez Dec., Sosa Fletes Dec.,
Sontay Funez Dec., Rosas Cardenas Dec., Betancourt Dec. Ferreira Borges Dec., and Bibiano
Soares Dec) (Appx II).
96
329. Respondents have not implemented adequate social distancing practices. Com-
pare CDC Guidance at 11 (Appx I, Exh. F, at 58); with Declarations of Individuals Detained at
all three facilities: Krome (Warsane Dec., Hasan Dec., Farah Dec., Arrak Dec.); Glades (Dairon
Barredo Sanchez Dec., Tahimi Perez Dec., Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec., Gerardo Vargas
Dec., and Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec.); and BTC (Valera Ramirez Dec., Sosa Fletes Dec.,
Sontay Funez Dec., Rosas Cardenas Dec., Betancourt Dec. Ferreira Borges Dec., and Bibiano
Soares Dec) (Appx II).
330. Respondents have not communicated clearly and frequently with Petitioners re-
garding COVID-19 and how they can contribute to risk reduction. Compare CDC Guidance at
12 (Appx I, Exh. F, at 59); with Declarations of Individuals Detained at all three facilities:
Krome (Warsane Dec., Hasan Dec., Farah Dec., Arrak Dec.); Glades (Dairon Barredo Sanchez
Dec., Tahimi Perez Dec., Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec., Gerardo Vargas Dec., and Francisco
Rivero Valeron Dec.); and BTC (Valera Ramirez Dec., Sosa Fletes Dec., Sontay Funez Dec.,
Rosas Cardenas Dec., Betancourt Dec. Ferreira Borges Dec., and Bibiano Soares Dec) (Appx
II).
331. Respondents’ cohorting practices violate CDC guidance and increase the threat
posed to Petitioners. The CDC’s Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease
2019 (COVID-19) states that cohort quarantine “should only be practiced if there are no other
available options” and that “[c]ohorting multiple quarantined close contacts of a COVID-19 case
could transmit COVID-19 from those who are infected to those who are uninfected.” Respond-
ents violate the CDC Guidelines by refusing to release people and instead keeping them confined
97
in close sleeping, eating, and living quarters at Krome, Glades, and BTC. Further, because Re-
spondents can and should release Petitioners and those similarly situated, “cohort quarantine” is
not the only “available option.”
332. Cohorting is not the same as quarantine or medical isolation and the CDC makes
it clear that cohorting is to be used only as a last resort in those “correctional facilities and deten-
tion centers do not have enough individual cells” for quarantine or medical isolation. Interim
Guidance, at 3, 15 (Appx, Exh. F, at 50, 62). The CDC and other medical expert opinions con-
firm that cohorting individuals who have not been confirmed to be infected with COVID-19
“puts everyone at very high risk of contracting and spreading COVID-19.” Shin Decl., ¶ 33
(Exh. 2).
333. On March 31, 2020, the President updated the guidance, renaming it “30 Days to
Slow the Spread,” and along with the White House Coronavirus Task Force urged Americans to
continue to adhere to the CDC guidelines and expand community mitigation efforts.” On April 1,
2020, Governor DeSantis issued a shelter-in-place order for the state of Florida, effective April
3, 2020. Exec. Order No. 20-91.
334. As Dr. Shin explains “[t]he only effective strategies to limit wide-spread impact
of COVID-19 are public health strategies. These include containment efforts like early identifi-
cation, contact tracing, isolation and quarantine measures, and intensive use of personal protec-
tive equipment. Unfortunately, due to limited testing capacity and public health resources com-
bined with wide-spread community spread, mitigation efforts like social distancing and scrupu-
lous hand and personal hygiene are critical to limit the spread of COVID-19.” Shin Dec., ¶ 12
(Exh. 2). Dr. Shin also explains that “[t]here is no way for immigration detention facilities to
98
comply with CDC guidelines on social distancing and quarantining unless Respondents release
detained men and women on a large scale.” Id. at ¶¶ 39-40. Dr. Shin concluded that it is “my
professional opinion that failure to release during the COVID-19 pandemic is a violation of the
CDC guidelines and will result in continued and wide-spread infection.” Id.
335. Dr. Shin’s conclusions are consistent with every other public health expert issued
early warnings about the spread of COVID-19 and the need for the federal, state and local gov-
ernments to employ social distancing mitigation efforts. See Exh. , Shin Decl., ¶ 6 (Exh. 2).
The consequences of the failure of federal, state and local government to adhere to the early
warning by public health officials have been borne out in the United States. Id. at ¶ 40. As of
the date of this Petition, there are 525,704 number of confirmed cases in the United States and
20,486 people have died.88
336. As is detailed supra, Respondents have failed to follow their duty to comply with
the PBNDS and NDS, which in turn require compliance with CDC guidelines and federal, state
and local laws. Respondents have neither reduced the population of Krome, Glades, and BTC.
Nor have they done anything to ensure social distancing and proper hygiene.
337. Respondents have an obligation under the PBNDS and the NDS to protect the Pe-
titioners. The PBNDS and the NDS require Respondents protect Petitioners by following the
CDC guidelines, complying with federal, state or local plans, and reports requirements.
88
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html
99
338. Petitioners have not been protected, and the Respondents’ violate the Accardi
doctrine by failing to comply with its own obligations in violation of the APA and Fifth Amend-
ment’s Due Process Clause.
COUNT TWO - FIFTH AMENDMENT – VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO

REASONABLE SAFETY
340. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees individuals in immigra-
tion detention the right to be free from punishment. The government violates this guarantee when
conditions of confinement lack a reasonable relationship to any legitimate governmental purpose,
i.e. when a custodian’s actions are excessive in relation to their purpose.
341. Respondents’ continued detention of Petitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic
is excessive in relation to any legitimate governmental purpose. Less harsh measures are availa-
ble to satisfy any government interest in continuing to detain Plaintiffs, including release with
conditions. Under these circumstances, Respondents’ detention of Petitioners amount to imper-
missible punishment.
342. Conditions of confinement for individuals in immigration detention also violate
the Fifth Amendment when the government fails, with deliberate indifference, to safeguard the
health and safety of those in custody. The government acts with deliberate indifference when it
knowingly exposes an individual in its custody to a substantial risk of serious harm.
343. Respondents have subjected Petitioners to conditions of confinement that create a
substantial risk of contracting a serious case of COVID-19, for which there is no known vaccine,
treatment, or cure. Respondents know or should be aware of the fact that Petitioners’ underlying
100
conditions render them especially vulnerable to severe illness or even death if they contract
COVID-19. Respondents are therefore knowingly subjecting Petitioners to an unreasonable risk
of serious harm, in violation of constitutional due process.
344. Respondents’ continued detention of Petitioners fails to adequately protect Peti-
tioners from the risks of contracting COVID-19.
345. Petitioners’ ongoing confinement lacks a reasonable relationship to any legitimate
governmental purpose and is excessive in relation to their purpose.
346. Respondents have exposed Petitioners to a substantial risk of serious harm.
347. Respondents have known of or disregarded the substantial risk of harm to Peti-
tioners’ health and safety.
348. Respondents have acted with deliberate indifference to Petitioners’ health and
safety.
349. Respondents’ continued detention of Petitioners violates the Due Process Clause
of the Fifth Amendment as detention has become punitive and is not reasonably safe.
COUNT THREE - FIFTH AMENDMENT – STATE-CREATED DANGER
351. The government acts with deliberate indifference to a known or obvious danger
when it recognizes an unreasonable risk and actually intends to expose petitioners to such risks
without regard to the consequences to petitioners. An unreasonable risk includes future harm
caused by conditions of confinement. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993). Re-
spondents have not complied its obligations to follow the CDC guidelines, and affirmatively
101
place Petitioners at greater risk of contracting COVID-19 by implemented practices that transfer
people into and out of facilities, and employs cohort quarantining approach – that drastically in-
creases the danger of the virus spreading. Respondents have acted with deliberate indifference to
the clear elevated levels of threat caused to Petitioners.
352. Respondents have affirmatively placed Petitioners in danger by forcing them into
a position more dangerous than it found them, exposing them to elevated dangerous by failing to
following CDC guidelines including by transferring people among facilities and improperly us-
ing cohort quarantines in a manner that places Petitioners in a more dangerous situation that it
found them. Respondents made the affirmative decision to not release Petitioners or use ATDs,
and instead implemented cohort quarantines in a manner that drastically increase the possibility
of transmission, infection, and facility-wide outbreak by grouping together people who have al-
ready been exposed to the virus. See Shin Decl. ¶40 (Exh. 2); Greer Decl., ¶¶34-35 (Exh. 3).
353. Respondents continue to detain Petitioners without taking necessary precautions
to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission. Respondents have thus exposed Petitioners to a
greater risk of contracting COVID-19 than they would have otherwise faced.
354. Respondents continued to actively disregard the threat of the pandemic. Petition-
ers are detained in conditions that expose them to a heightened risk of contracting COVID-19.
Respondents are confining Petitioners in close proximity to other detainees and ICE officers, ren-
dering Petitioners entirely unable to practice necessary social distancing.
355. ICE officers are failing to take necessary precautions, to avoid transmitting
COVID-19 to Petitioners, detainees, and other officers. Respondents’ ongoing detention of Peti-
tioners thus continues to expose them to a greater risk of contracting COVID-19 than they would
102
face if they were not in detention and were able to take necessary precautions to protect them-
selves.
356. Respondents have acted, and continue to act, with deliberate indifference to the
known and obvious risk of COVID-19 transmission.
357. Respondents implemented a cohort quarantine approach that does not comply
with CDC guidelines and drastically increases the risk of COVID-19 exposure and contraction,
at the time when the federal government and State of Florida had both declared public health
emergencies. Despite being well-aware of both the risks of community transmission of COVID-
19 and the preventive measures necessary to slow that transmission, Respondents acted without
regard to the consequences to Petitioners by failing to implement a plan calculated to meaning-
fully comply with CDC guidelines, instead exposing the Petitioners to drastically increased risk
of exposure by defying CDC guidelines in the use of cohort quarantining and actively transfer-
ring detainees among facilities with confirmed cases detainees and facility employees having
contracted COVID-19. See Shin Decl. ¶40 (Exh. 2).
358. For these reasons, Petitioners’ detention violates the Fifth Amendment Due Pro-
cess Clause because Respondents affirmatively subjected Petitioners to an unreasonable risk of
danger, greater danger than before Respondents acted, with deliberate indifference to employing
policies that drastically increase the risk of Petitioners’ contracting COVID-19.
103
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE Petitioners request that the Court grant the following relief:
a. Assume jurisdiction over this matter;
b. Enjoin Respondents from transferring Petitioners, and the class they represent,
from Krome, Glades, or BTC, until the Court has decided this action;
c. Issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus on the ground that Respondents’ continued deten-
tion of Petitioners, and the class they represent, violates the Due Process Clause and order the
immediate release of Petitioners and the class they represent, with appropriate precautionary
public health measures;
d. Issue injunctive relief ordering Respondents to immediately release Petitioners
and all similarly situated detainees in Krome Service Processing Center, Glades County Deten-
tion Center, and Broward Transitional Center with appropriate precautionary public health
measures, on the grounds that continued detention violates the constitutional Due Process rights
of Petitioners and the class they represent;
e. Issue a declaration that Respondents’ continued detention of Petitioners and all
class members creates an undue increased risk of severe illness or death, and thus violates the
Due Process Clause;
f. Issue an order prohibiting Respondents from placing new detainees in the Krome
Service Processing Center, Glades County Detention Center, and Broward Transitional Center
until COVID-19 no longer poses a threat in Florida.
g. Award Petitioners their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees in this action under
the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), as amended, 5 U.S.C. § 504 and 28 U.S.C. § 2412,
104
and on any other basis justified under law; and
h. Grant any other and further relief that this Court may deem fit and proper.
Dated: April 13, 2020
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Rebecca Sharpless
REBECCA SHARPLESS
Florida Bar No. 0131024
ROMY LERNER
KATARINA M. GOMEZ, Law Student
MEREDITH HOFFMAN, Law Student
MARIA A. LLORENS, Law Student
JACOB S. MORSE, Law Student
OLIVIA G. PARISE, Law Student
MARIA A. PISELLI, Law Student
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF LAW
IMMIGRATION CLINIC
1311 Miller Drive Suite, E-273
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
Tel: (305) 284-3576
Fax: (305) 284-6092
[email protected]
RAPID DEFENSE NETWORK

GREGORY P. COPELAND*
SARAH T. GILLMAN*
11 Broadway, Suite 615
New York, NY 10004
Tel.: (212) 843-0910
Fax: (212) 257-7033
[email protected]
[email protected]
*Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending
105
MARK ANDREW PRADA

Fla. Bar No. 91997
ANTHONY RICHARD DOMINGUEZ
Fla. Bar No. 1002234
PRADA URIZAR, PLLC
3191 Coral Way, Suite 500
Miami, FL 33145
Tel.: (786) 703-2061
Fax: (786) 708-9508
[email protected]
[email protected]
PAUL R. CHAVEZ
FL Bar No. 1021395
MAIA FLEISCHMAN
FL Bar No. 1010709
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 3200
Miami, FL 33101
Tel: (305) 537-0577
[email protected]
[email protected]
ANDREA MONTAVON-MCKILLIP
LEGAL AID SERVICE OF BROWARD COUNTY, INC.
491 North State Road 7
Plantation, Florida 33317
Tel. (954) 736-2493
Fax (954) 736-2484
[email protected]
Counsel for Petitioners-Plaintiffs
106
PETITIONER-PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFICATION
I am submitting this verification on behalf of the Petitioner-Plaintiffs because I am one of
the Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ attorneys. I have discussed with the Petitioners-Plaintiffs’ legal team the
events described in this Petition. On the basis of those discussions, on information and belief, I
hereby verify that the factual statements made in the attached Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
By: /s/ Rebecca Sharpless
Rebecca Sharpless
Immigration Clinic
University of Miami School of Law
1311 Miller Drive Suite E-273
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
Tel: (305) 284-3576, direct
Tel: (305) 284-6092, clinic
[email protected]
107

Habeas Petition (Patrick Gayle, Et, Al. v. ICE and Barr)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Habeas Petition (Patrick Gayle, Et, Al. v. ICE and Barr)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Habeas Petition (Patrick Gayle, Et, Al. v. ICE and Barr)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 1 of 111

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

KROME SERVICE PROCESSING CENTER

GLADES COUNTY DETENTION CENTER

RENE JONATHAN ROSAS CARDENAS,

BROWARD TRANSITIONAL CENTER

Petitioners-Plaintiffs, on behalf of them-

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR

JURISDICTION AND VENUE ................................................................................................... 24

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES .............................................................. 28

A. COVID-19 is a global pandemic that poses a significant risk of death or serious

LEGAL FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................................. 89

A. Due Process Right to Reasonably Safe Non-Punitive Civil Detention..............................89

COUNT ONE - ACCARDI DOCTRINE (FIFTH AMENDMENT/APA) – VIOLATION OF

DETENTION STANDARDS ....................................................................................................... 94

COUNT TWO - FIFTH AMENDMENT – VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO................................ 100

REASONABLE SAFETY .......................................................................................................... 100

COUNT THREE - FIFTH AMENDMENT – STATE-CREATED DANGER.......................... 101

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................................. 104

PETITIONER-PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFICATION........................................................................ 107

1. Petitioners-Plaintiffs (hereafter “Petitioners”) are women and men detained by

Respondents-Defendants in civil immigration detention at three Florida detention centers within

CDC guidelines, and reduce their likelihood of infection and illness.

2020) (DE 64) (copy at Appx. I, Exh. A, 1-29).

custody in Florida have tested positive for the virus.”).

employees in detention centers. Third-party contractors comprise a majority of employees in de-

tention centers. (Appx I, Exh. D, at 35-36.)

government Respondents can provide the remedy requested by this action.

possibility of transmission, infection, and facility-wide outbreak by grouping together people

cal transfer if needed.” (Appx I, Exh. F, at 62.)

and vigilant hygiene—the only known mitigation measures.

and BTC, increasing their already large populations.

settings” as well. (Id., at 95 §5.)

See Shin Decl., ¶24 (Exh. 2).

Friends of Miami-Dade Detainees).

around the world.

tering in place, practicing social distancing, and maintaining good hygiene.

31. Petitioner APARICIO P. JERONIMO is a citizen of Guatemala who is detained

can practice safe distancing and take care of himself.

32. Petitioner RENE JONATHAN ROSAS CARDENAS is a citizen of Cuba who

33. Petitioner ROSELINE OSTINE is a citizen of Haiti who is detained at Glades.

self-quarantine and practice social distancing.

34. Petitioner TOLENTINO MARTINEZ-RIOS is a citizen of Mexico who is de-

practice safe social distancing.

35. Petitioner ADRIAN SOSA FLETES is a citizen of Cuba who is detained at

36. Petitioner WILDER PEREZ LIMONES is a citizen of Mexico who is detained

37. Petitioner JAVIER ANTONIO ARIAS-MARTINEZ is a citizen of the Domini-

38. Petitioner ALEJANDRO FERREIRA BORGES is a citizen of Cuba who is de-

be able to self-quarantine and practice social distancing.

40. Petitioner FRANKLIN RAMON GONZALEZ is a national of the Dominican

41. Petitioner MAIKEL BETANCOURT is a citizen of Cuba who is detained at

42. Petitioner FRANCISCO RIVERO VALERON is a lawful permanent resident of

where he will follow all recommendations from the CDC.

43. Petitioner GELBER SONTAY FUNEZ Is a citizen of Guatemala who is de-

his sponsor in Lehigh Acres, Florida.

45. Petitioner FERMIN TEPETATE-MARTINEZ is a citizen of Mexico who is de-

the CDC guidelines.

46. Petitioner IRVIN MENDOZA SILIS is a citizen of Mexico who is detained by

47. Petitioner GERARDO VARGAS is a 57-year-old legal permanent resident of the