Castaneda v. Garland
| Decision Date | 19 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 5:21-cv-01418-JWH-SHKx |
| Citation | 562 F.Supp.3d 545 |
| Parties | Sandra Lizbeth CASTANEDA, Plaintiff, v. Merrick B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General; Executive Office for Immigration Review; Jean King, Acting Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review; Roodin Rooyani, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge for the Los Angeles Immigration Court, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
Anoop Prasad, Jingni Zhao, Asian Law Caucus, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.
Joseph William Tursi, AUSA - US Attorneys Office Central District of California, Los Angeles, CA, DCS Trial Attorney, District Court Section, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [ECF No. 14]
Plaintiff Sandra Lizbeth Castaneda was born in Mexico, but she is a lawful permanent resident of the United States. From 2003 until a few months ago, Castaneda was serving a 40-years-to-life sentence in California state prison in connection with a gang-related homicide. In view of Castaneda's remarkable rehabilitation, California Governor Gavin Newsome commuted her sentence, and on July 27, 2021,1 she was released from the California Institution for Women in Chino. Immediately upon her release, she was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"). Castaneda is currently in federal custody at the Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia.
According to the uncontested factual allegations in the Complaint and in Castaneda's moving papers, Defendants Merrick B. Garland (the United States Attorney General); the Executive Office for Immigration Review; Jean King (the Acting Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review); and Roodin Rooyani (the Assistant Chief Immigration Judge for the Los Angeles Immigration Court) refused to accept Castaneda's motion for a bond hearing at the Los Angeles Immigration Court; they moved her to Georgia in contravention of government policy; and they now insist that any bond hearing take place in Georgia, under Eleventh Circuit law, instead of in Los Angeles, under Ninth Circuit law.
Through her instant motion for a preliminary injunction,2 Castaneda asks the Court (1) to set aside, under the Administrative Procedure Act, Defendants’ rejection of Castaneda's bond motion; and (2) to issue an injunction or a writ of mandamus compelling Defendants to accept Castaneda's bond motion nunc pro tunc and to conduct the bond hearing at the Los Angeles Immigration Court. After considering the papers filed in support and in opposition,3 as well as the oral argument of counsel at the hearing on the Motion, the Court GRANTS the Motion, for the reasons set forth herein.
Castaneda commenced this action on August 20, and she filed the instant Motion on September 3. Defendants timely filed their Opposition a week later, and Castaneda timely filed her Reply a week after that. The Court conducted a hearing on the Motion on October 4.
Castaneda was born in Mexico. She came to the United States as a lawful permanent resident around 1991, when she was nine years old.4 Eleven years later, when Castaneda was 20 years old, she drove two friends, both of whom were gang members, to get food.5 Her friends spotted members of a rival gang on the sidewalk.6 The friends drew guns and fired, killing one person and injuring a second.7 Castaneda drove away, with her two friends still in the car. Neither friend was ever apprehended or prosecuted for the shooting.8 Castaneda, however, was arrested and convicted of murder in California state court, and she was sentenced to 40 years to life in prison.9
Castaneda did not languish while she was incarcerated; instead, she made the most of her circumstances.10 Specifically, Castaneda completed her GED, enrolled in college classes, and voluntarily participated in and led workshops such as Beyond Violence, Conflict Anger Lifelong Management, and Restorative Justice/Victim Impact.11 In addition, Castaneda mentored other incarcerated women through the Big Sister Mentor Program, and she served as a peer educator in connection with the Prison Rape Elimination Act.12 During her last 10 years in prison, Castaneda had no significant rules violations.13 Prison staff described her conduct and her rehabilitation as exceptional.14
In April 2019, Ralph Diaz, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") wrote to the presiding judge in Castaneda's criminal case.15 Diaz recommend that the court resentence Castaneda in view of her rehabilitation and her readiness to transition into society.16 In November 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom granted Castaneda clemency and commuted her sentence, thereby making her immediately eligible for consideration for parole.17
In April 2021, the Board of Parole Hearings found that Castaneda did not pose a danger to the community and recommended her release.18 In May, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Connie Quinones recalled Castaneda's sentence.19 On July 21, Judge Quinones vacated Castaneda's conviction.20 Judge Quinones held that Castaneda's murder conviction was legally insufficient under California's current felony murder law.21 With her conviction vacated, Castaneda became eligible for immediate release from California state prison.22
At that point, ICE placed a "detainer" on Castaneda. The detainer served as a request that CDCR facilitate Castaneda's transfer to ICE custody upon her release from prison.23 Castaneda then began working with immigration attorney Anoop Prasad to prepare for potential removal proceedings.24 On July 26, Prasad faxed to ICE a copy of the state court's July 21 minute order vacating Castaneda's conviction.25 Prasad requested that ICE drop the detainer because ICE had no basis to detain or remove Castaneda—a lawful permanent resident.26 Castaneda is informed and believes that CDCR also provided ICE with a copy of the July 21 minute order.27
Nevertheless, ICE arrested Castaneda at around 9:00 a.m. on July 27—immediately upon her release from prison—and transported her to its San Bernardino Sub-Office.28 Around one hour later, Prasad called staff at that Sub-Office, who confirmed that ICE was aware of the vacatur of Castaneda's conviction, but that ICE declined to release Castaneda.29 That same day, an Assistant District Attorney for Los Angeles County also called ICE to inform the agency that the state criminal court had vacated Castaneda's only removable conviction.30
In an effort to seek the review of Castaneda's detention, Prasad prepared to file a motion for a bond hearing at the Los Angeles Immigration Court at 606 S. Olive Street (which is commonly known as "LOS").31 Castaneda alleges that LOS had jurisdiction over Castaneda's place of detention at the San Bernardino Sub-Office.32 Defendants disagree.33
LOS permits only paper filings—not electronic filings—so Prasad enlisted the assistance of a fellow immigration attorney, Veronica Barba, to file Castaneda's bond motion at LOS by hand.34 The parties dispute the extent to which the immigration court's public website suggests that LOS was the correct immigration court location at which to file the motion.35 Defendants acknowledge in their Opposition, however, that the U.S. Justice Department website states that LOS "may have jurisdiction over ‘LOS ANGELES, CA—DHS DISTRICT OFFICE (including any sub-offices).’ "36
When Barba attempted to file Castaneda's bond motion by hand at LOS, a clerk at the filing window refused to accept the papers, telling Barba that ICE had not yet placed Castaneda in removal proceedings by filing a Notice to Appear.37 Barba advised the clerk that the Immigration Court Practice Manual provides that the immigration court could conduct bond proceedings prior to the filing of a Notice to Appear and that the court was required to accept Castaneda's bond motion.38 Barba conveyed the same information to Harold Suhr, a supervisor at LOS.39 Suhr responded with the same explanation as the clerk and refused to accept the filing.40
Shortly thereafter, Prasad telephoned Suhr. Suhr explained to Prasad that he would not accept the filing until ICE filed a Notice to Appear, and Suhr added that bond motions could be filed only at immigration court locations that hear detained cases (unlike LOS).41 Prasad responded to Suhr with citations to precedent and to the Immigration Court Practice Manual, explaining that Suhr was incorrect with respect to the necessity of a Notice to Appear.42 Prasad additionally explained that LOS was designated as an immigration court that could review Castaneda's detention at an ICE sub-office.43 Accordingly, Prasad requested that Suhr's supervisor or the Court Administrator consider the filing.44 Suhr agreed to check with the Court Administrator and to call Prasad back before the court closed that day.45 Suhr failed to honor that commitment; he did not call Prasad back, despite Prasad's numerous voicemails.46 According to Prasad—and uncontested by Defendants—Suhr never told Prasad to file the bond motion at an immigration court location other than LOS, such as the Los Angeles Immigration Court at N. Los Angeles Street (which is commonly known as "NLA").47 Prasad testifies that he "did not ask Mr. Suhr to identify the immigration court that would accept Ms. Castaneda's bond motion because he told me clearly that the bond motion was being rejected because no Notice to Appear had been filed."48
At the hearing on this Motion, Defendants’ counsel attempted to cast doubt on Prasad's and Barba's respective recollections of their experiences with the clerk and with Suhr.49 However, Defendants chose not to submit declarations, nor any other evidence, to the contrary from the clerk or from Suhr. The Court therefore accepts Barba's and Prasad's sworn declarations as accurate and uncontested.
Around 9:00...
To continue reading
Request your trial