Hope v. Warden York County Prison

972 F.3d 310 (3rd Cir. 2020)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

On April 7, 2020, the District Court ordered the immediate release of twenty-two immigration detainees. It did so ex parte, by granting Petitioners' motion for temporary restraining order (TRO) without affording the Government an opportunity to be heard. After staying its April 7, 2020 order, the District Court again mandated Petitioners' release on April 10, 2020. Hope (Ps), immigration detainees sought release from their detention. The District Court held that Ps were likely to succeed on their claim that their detention deprived them of substantive due process because of their advanced ages and medical histories. Ps filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking release from custody and alleging they were at risk of serious harm from COVID-19 while detained. They filed a joint habeas petition even though they: (1) vary in age from 28 to 69, with only one of them older than 65; (2) have divergent health conditions; (3) were detained for various reasons; (4) have unique criminal histories; (5) have individual flight risk profiles; and (6) have diverse home and family situations. The petition alleged they are 'united by the fact that they are over age 65 and/or adults who have a serious pre-existing medical condition' and that 'the United States Centers for Disease Control has determined [their conditions] put[] them at significantly higher risk of severe disease and death if they contract COVID-19.' Ps claimed their confinement deprives them of substantive due process because it constitutes punishment and because Ds are deliberately indifferent to their serious medical needs. According to Petitioners, only release will rectify their unconstitutional confinement. Ps moved for TRO but did not request ex parte relief. Without any notice, the District Court entered its April 7 order ex parte without a hearing. D was commanded to immediately release Ps 'on their own recognizance.' Five hours after the April 7 ex parte order was entered, D entered its appearance, filed a motion to stay the immediate release order, and sought reconsideration. A stay was issued. On April 10, and again without holding a hearing and without discussing D's response, the District Court entered an order: (1) denying reconsideration of its April 7 order; (2) lifting the temporary stay; and (3) reiterating the relief provided by the April 7 order, again mandating the release of Ps that day. D appealed both orders.