Russell v. Acuff

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Illinois
DecidedApril 26, 2021
Docket3:21-cv-00381
StatusUnknown

This text of Russell v. Acuff (Russell v. Acuff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Russell v. Acuff, (S.D. Ill. 2021).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

WILLIAM RUSSELL, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 21-cv-381-NJR ) DAMON ACUFF, in his official capacity ) as Warden of Pulaski County ) Detention Center, ) HENRY LUCERO, in his official capacity ) as Field Office Director, Chicago ) Field Office, U.S. Immigration and ) Customs Enforcement, ) TAE D. JOHNSON, in his official capacity ) as Acting Director, U.S. Immigra- ) tion and Customs Enforcement, ) and ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his ) official capacity as Secretary, U.S. ) Department of Homeland Security, ) ) Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:

Petitioner William Russell is in immigration detention at the Pulaski County Detention Center in Ullin, Illinois (“Pulaski”). He filed an Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on April 13, 2021, seeking immediate release on the basis that his serious medical conditions, including his likely need for an amputation, have rendered his detention unconstitutional. (Doc. 1). Respondents oppose the Petition, asserting that Russell’s removal from the United States is imminent and habeas relief is not proper or warranted based on the conditions of his confinement. (Doc. 11). Russell filed a Reply. (Doc. 13). Based upon the Court’s review and consideration of the parties’ briefs and documentation, and for the reasons that follow, the Court denies Russell’s request for habeas corpus relief.

BACKGROUND Russell, a 61-year-old citizen of Jamaica, has lived in the United States since his entry in 1976 without inspection. (Doc. 1, p. 3; Doc. 11, p. 1). He has seven U.S. Citizen children, ages 13 to 28. His medical conditions include insulin-dependent Type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, asthma, and obstructive sleep apnea for which he uses a CPAP machine nightly. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6). He contracted COVID-19 at Pulaski in September 2020 and was hospitalized for chest pain and shortness of breath. (Doc. 1, p. 7).

At an undetermined date, Russell developed swelling and pain in his right foot, and on March 2, 2021, he was referred to an orthopedic specialist.1 The orthopedist took x-rays and prescribed a 2-week course of oral antibiotics on March 3, 2021, for possible osteomyelitis (bone infection). (Doc. 12-1, pp. 25-26; Doc. 12-3, pp. 24-25). At a follow-up appointment on March 15, the orthopedist noted improvement and continued the antibiotic treatment. (Doc. 12-3, p. 31). On April 1, the doctor noted he was “back to his baseline[;]” there was “no indication for surgery at this point” but “[h]e ultimately may need surgery.” (Doc. 12-3, p. 37).

Russell’s course of antibiotics ended on April 4, 2021, and his foot began to swell again. (Doc. 13, p. 4). On April 14, 2021 the Pulaski physician recommended another referral to the orthopedist “for recurrence/non-resolution of possible osteomyelitis” after Russell stated he

1 Russell asserts that he complained of foot pain and swelling for “several weeks” before he was given an x-ray and an outside referral. (Doc. 1, p. 7). His medical records do not reflect any complaint about the foot condition before March 2, 2021. (Doc. 12-1, pp. 26-38). felt the foot infection may not be completely resolved. (Doc. 12-4, p. 5). The doctor took him off his work duty in the kitchen because of the foot swelling on April 16, 2021. (Doc. 13, p. 4). As of April 21, Russell had not yet returned to the orthopedist. (Doc. 13, p. 3). His podiatrist

prescribed special diabetic shoes on or before April 13, 2021, but these have not yet been provided. (Doc. 12-4, pp. 3-4; Doc. 13, p. 3). Russell also claims that he has been housed in cells where the low temperatures have rendered his CPAP machine ineffective. (Doc. 1, p. 8). Russell was convicted of several state criminal offenses between 1993 and 2015, and in August 2017 he was convicted of the federal offenses of aggravated identity theft and false statements in a passport application and served 40 months in federal prison. (Doc. 1, p. 10;

Doc. 11, pp. 1-2; Doc. 11-1, pp. 2-4). Upon his release, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) took him into custody on July 7, 2020, and he has been in ICE custody since then. (Doc. 11, p. 2). Russell admitted he was subject to deportation and did not seek relief from removal; his final administrative removal order was issued on July 20, 2020. (Doc. 11, pp. 2- 3). ICE initiated a request for travel documents in July 2020 and made several follow-up inquiries over the ensuing months; medical clearance from the Jamaican Ministry of Health

and Wellness related to Russell’s continued medical care on his return to Jamaica was required before travel documents would be issued. (Doc. 11, pp. 3-4; Doc. 11-1, pp. 6-9). On April 16, 2021, the Jamaican Embassy notified Respondents that a travel document was being issued. Id. ICE plans to transfer Russell by April 19 to an out-of-state detention center where he will undergo medical and security checks and receive a 2-month supply of medication before his departure. Respondents state Russell is scheduled to be flown to Jamaica on an ICE charter flight during the last week of April 2021. (Doc. 11, p. 4). Respondents have kept Russell in custody on the basis that he entered the U.S. illegally and has a criminal history that “makes him a security and flight risk.” (Doc. 11, p. 5).

His removal proceedings were based on 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), which provides for removal of a noncitizen convicted of an “aggravated felony” as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(R).2 (Doc. 11, p. 2; Doc. 11-1, p. 4). Respondents have denied Russell’s request for release on supervision. (Doc. 11, p. 6). DISCUSSION Russell is in detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) (“Detention and Removal of Aliens Ordered Removed”) because a final administrative removal order has been issued for

him. (Doc. 11, p. 3). Removal should ordinarily take place within 90 days of the final removal order, but detention may be extended for a person who, like Russell, is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal habeas court may grant release to a person who “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” Noncitizens may challenge the fact of their civil immigration detention via a Section 2241 petition, Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687-88 (2001), and courts may consider

individualized challenges to the constitutionality of immigration detention. See Jennings, 138 S. Ct. at 851-52; Nielsen v. Preap, 139 S. Ct. 954, 972 (2019) (“Our decision today on the meaning of that statutory provision [§ 1226(c)]3 does not foreclose as-applied challenges—that is,

2 Section 1101(a)(43)(R) includes offenses “relating to commercial bribery, counterfeiting, [and] forgery” in its definition of “aggravated felony.” 3 Section 1226(c) mandates detention of “criminal aliens” whose removal proceedings are still pending and authorizes release only in narrow circumstances. constitutional challenges to applications of the statute as we have now read it.”); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Preiser v. Rodriguez
411 U.S. 475 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Zadvydas v. Davis
533 U.S. 678 (Supreme Court, 2001)
Nielsen v. Preap
586 U.S. 392 (Supreme Court, 2019)
Vargas v. Beth
378 F. Supp. 3d 716 (E.D. Wisconsin, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Russell v. Acuff, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-acuff-ilsd-2021.