ICE Negligence Suit Allowed to Proceed in Manhattan Federal Court
Immigration authorities allegedly failed to properly discharge a mentally ill detainee, who suffered a psychiatric breakdown shortly after.
March 29, 2019 at 05:47 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge in Manhattan has allowed a lawsuit against Immigration and Customs Enforcement to proceed over claims the agency was negligent in not providing a person in custody with proper medical care at discharge, resulting in a mental health emergency that required months of intense medical treatment.
Michelet Charles, a lawful permanent resident, claims to have been diagnosed with bipolar and schizoaffective disorders for the past 35 years. Medication and other treatments helped him manage his mental health issues for years, allowing him to work, have a family, and participate in society in general, according to court filings.
In July 2014, ICE took Charles into custody, placing him in the Orange County Correctional Center. He was one of the hundreds of detainees federal immigration authorities place in the facility each year. Despite being detained at the facility, Charles claimed that ICE had direct custody over him at key points, including immediately before his release.
Later that month, Charles was released after a hearing at the Varick Street Immigration Court in Manhattan. He claims he was “simply dumped on the streets of Lower Manhattan with nothing more than his identification.” Critically, he claims that ICE failed to provide him with an adequate discharge plan that should have included a supply of interim medication and a summary of medical records, among other items.
Charles claims that his attorney discussed the need for medication with an ICE officer, who said the agency did not have a supply. Charles was directed to return to the Orange County facility, 65 or so miles away, to obtain a supply and his other belongings. When Charles attempted to do so the next day, an employee at the facility said the ICE officials that transported him to Manhattan were responsible for providing the medication. Charles' attorney said the ICE officer was contacted but failed to respond to inquiries.
Within weeks, Charles claims, his psychosis was so severe he lost contact with reality, requiring his family to call for emergency medical assistance.
ICE argued that it was immune from Charles' negligence claims under the independent contractor exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act.
U.S. District Judge Vincent Briccetti of the Southern District of New York disagreed.
As Briccetti noted, Charles' claims are over ICE's own actions, rather than anything that happened while he was in the care of officials in Orange County. The alleged failures were claimed to have occurred off-site from the Orange County facility, not under the control and care of the Orange County facility's staff, while ICE officials themselves allegedly failed to provide a discharge plan for Charles, the judge stated.
Charles also sufficiently alleged ICE's conduct in failing to supervise its own employees was based on inattentiveness, laziness, or absentmindedness, not as part of a consideration of policy, which was required for the agency to be granted a discretionary function exception under the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity.
Charles' legal team is principally led by attorneys with New York Lawyers for the Public Interest. In a statement, Laura Redman, the group's director of health justice, said the attorneys and client were pleased with the court's decision.
“It's particularly important now, as the number of people in immigration detention increases dramatically, to be able to hold ICE accountable for having a hand in causing great harm to people,” Redman said. “We are gratified that we will have the opportunity to pursue our client's claims.”
Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett was co-counsel in the action.
A spokeswoman for ICE did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Related:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAmid Ripple of Marketing Moves, Paul Hastings Hires 2 Pros From Skadden
2 minute read'Rampant Piracy': US Record Labels File Copyright Suit Against French Distributor Believe
5 minute readUS Judge Rejects Morgan Stanley Reconsideration Bid in Deferred Compensation Litigation
US Bankruptcy Filings Rise 16.2% as Interest Rates, Inflation, and End of COVID Relief Hit Hard
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1DC Judge, Applying 'Loper Bright', Dismisses Complaint in Medicare Drug-Classification Dispute
- 2Environmental Law in Trump’s Second Term
- 3Lock-Maker's Veteran GC Takes Old Job Back After Successor Lasts Just 3 Months
- 4Judge Sets April Retrial Date in Sarah Palin Defamation Action Against NY Times
- 5HSF and Kramer Levin Leaders Set Out Merger Timeline, Structure
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250