Gavilanes-Curiel

Gavilanes-Curiel v. Archambeault

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaSeptember 21, 20213:21-cv-01471California913 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

DISCUSSION

25 Petitioner seeks release from ICE custody for violation of his Fifth Amendment 26 rights. He alleges that the Imperial Regional Detention Facility (IRDF) is placing him at 27 extraordinary and unreasonable risk of contracting COVID-19 and that he is medically 28 vulnerable due to his obesity. He has not been released pending his removal proceedings because he has been deemed to pose a threat to public safety due to his criminal history, which includes an aggravated felony. [Doc. No. 5-1 at 2, 6-12, 15-17, 27-28, 30, 32-33.] To succeed on a habeas petition, a petitioner must show that he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Due process imposes a duty on the government “to assume some responsibility for [the] safety and general well-being” of persons it takes into its custody. DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 199-200 (1989) (citation omitted). The government can consequently be held liable for a due process violation where a government official affirmatively places individuals, with deliberate indifference to their health…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.