Fraihat v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement

• Decision Date: 20 April 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. EDCV 19-1546 JGB (SHKx)
• Citation: 445 F.Supp.3d 709
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California
• Parties: Faour Abdallah FRAIHAT, et al. v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al.

445 F.Supp.3d 709

Faour Abdallah FRAIHAT, et al.

v.U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al.

Case No. EDCV 19-1546 JGB (SHKx)

United States District Court, C.D. California.

Filed April 20, 2020

MAYNOR GALVEZ, Deputy Clerk, Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): None Present

Not Reported, Court Reporter, Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present

Proceedings: Order (1) GRANTING Motions to File Amicus Briefs (Dkt. Nos. 117, 119); (2) GRANTING Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Certify Subclass (Dkt. No. 83); (3) GRANTING Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 81); and DENYING AS MOOT Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to File Supplement (Dkt. No. 127) (IN CHAMBERS)

The Honorable JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court are: (1) two motions to file amicus briefs, (Dkt. Nos. 117, 119); (2) Plaintiffs' emergency motion to certify subclass, ("Class Certification Motion," Dkt. No. 83); (3) Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction to implement protections against COVID-19, ("PI Motion," Dkt. No. 81); and (4) Plaintiffs' ex parte application for leave to file post-hearing briefing and response, (Dkt. No. 127). The Court held a telephonic hearing on the first three matters on April 13, 2020. After considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the matters, as well as the oral argument of the parties, the Court GRANTS motions to file amicus briefs, GRANTS the Class Certification Motion, GRANTS the PI Motion, and DENIES AS MOOT the ex parte application.

I. BACKGROUND

The country is in the midst of an unprecedented pandemic, as a result of which hundreds of millions of people have been urged to shelter in place or stay at home. However, some of us are sheltering in more fortunate circumstances than others. The central question presented by Plaintiffs' Motions is whether the conditions in which Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") detainees are held during the pandemic likely violate the Constitution, and if so, what measures can and should be taken to ensure constitutionally permissible conditions of detention.

A. Procedural Background

On August 19, 2019, Faour Abdallah Fraihat, Marco Montoya Amaya, Raul Alcocer Chavez, Jose Segovia Benitez, Hamida Ali, Melvin Murillo Hernandez, Jimmy Sudney, José Baca Hernández, Edilberto García Guerrero, Martín Muñoz, Luis Manuel Rodriguez Delgadillo, Ruben Darío Mencías Soto, Alex Hernandez, Aristoteles Sanchez Martinez, Sergio Salazar Artaga,¹ ("Individual Plaintiffs"), Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice ("ICIJ"), and Al Otro Lado ("Organizational Plaintiffs) (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed a putative class action complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. ("Complaint," Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 21-126.) The Defendants are U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), DHS Acting Secretary Kevin McAleenan, ICE Acting Director Matthew T. Albence, ICE Deputy Director Derek N. Brenner, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations ("ERO") Acting Executive Associate Director Timothy S. Robbins, ERO Assistant Director of Custody Management Tae Johnson, ICE Health Service Corps ("IHSC") Assistant Director Stewart D. Smith, ERO Operations Support Assistant Director Jacki Becker Klopp, and DHS Senior Official Performing Duties of the Deputy Secretary David P. Pekoske (collectively "Defendants"). (Id. ¶¶ 127-36.)

Plaintiffs are immigration detainees with a range of serious health conditions and two organizations that provide services to detainees. (Id. at ¶¶ 21-126.) Together they claim Defendants have failed to ensure minimum lawful conditions of confinement at immigration detention facilities across the country. (Id. ¶¶ 1-13.) Plaintiffs assert four claims: (1) Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment - failure to monitor and prevent "Challenged Practices"² (all Plaintiffs and the Class against all Defendants); (2) Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment - failure to monitor and prevent "Segregation Practices" (Organizational Plaintiffs, Segregation Plaintiffs and Segregation Subclass against all Defendants); (3) Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment - failure to monitor and prevent "Disability-Related Practices" that constitute punishment (Organizational Plaintiffs, Disability Plaintiffs, and Disability Subclass against all Defendants); (4) violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ("Rehab Act"), 29 U.S.C. § 794 (Organizational Plaintiffs, Disability Plaintiffs, and Disability Subclass against DHS, ICE, and IHSC). (Compl.) On April 15, 2020 the Court Denied Defendants' motion to dismiss, sever, or transfer venue. (MTD Order, Dkt. No. 126.)

On March 25, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the Class Certification and PI Motions. (Class Cert. Mot.; PI Mot.) Plaintiffs included in support of the Class Certification Motion the following documents:

• Declaration of William F. Alderman, ("Alderman Declaration," Dkt. No. 83-2 (attaching Exhibit A));

• Declaration of Michael W. Johnson, ("Johnson Declaration," Dkt. No. 83-2);

• Declaration of Stuart Seaborn, ("Seaborn Declaration," Dkt. No. 83-4 (attaching Exhibits A to J));

• Declaration of Lisa Graybill, ("Graybill Declaration," Dkt. No. 83-5);

• Declaration of Timothy P. Fox, ("Fox Declaration," Dkt. No. 83-6);

• Declaration of Alex Hernandez, ("Hernandez Declaration," Dkt. No. 83-7);

• Declaration of Aristoteles Sanchez, ("Sanchez Declaration," Dkt. No. 83-8);

• Declaration of Faour Abdallah Fraihat, ("Fraihat Declaration," Dkt. No. 83-9);

• Declaration of Jimmy Sudney, ("Sudney Declaration," Dkt. No. 83-10); and

• Declaration of Martin Muñoz, ("Muñoz Declaration," Dkt. No. 83-11).

In support of the PI Motion, Plaintiffs filed the following supporting documents:

• Declaration of Thomas Ragland, ("Ragland Declaration," Dkt. No. 81-2); • Declaration of Mikhail Solomonov, ("Solomonov Declaration," Dkt. No. 81-3);

• Declaration of Maureen A. Sweeny, ("Sweeny Declaration," Dkt. Nos. 81-4, 89 (attaching Exhibit A));

• Declaration of Linda Corchado, ("Corchado Declaration," Dkt. No. 81-5);

• Declaration of Laura G. Rivera, ("Rivera Declaration," Dkt. No. 81-6);

• Declaration of Keren Zwick, ("Zwick Declaration," Dkt. No. 81-7);

• Declaration of Jamie Meyer, ("Meyer Declaration," Dkt. Nos. 81-8, 90 (attaching Exhibit A));

• Declaration of Francis L. Conlin, ("Conlin Declaration," Dkt. No. 81-9);

• Declaration of Elissa Steglich, ("Steglich Declaration," Dkt. No. 81-10);

• Declaration of Homer Venters, ("Venters Declaration," Dkt. No. 81-11 (attaching Exhibit A));

• Declaration of Dr. Carlos Franco-Paredes, ("Paredes Declaration," Dkt. Nos. 81-12, 91 (attaching Exhibit A));

• Declaration of Anne Rios, ("Rios Declaration," Dkt No. 81-13);

• Declaration of Andrew Lorenzen-Strait, ("Lorenzen-Strait Declaration," Dkt. Nos. 81-14, 92 (attaching Exhibit A)); and

• Declaration of Andrea Saenz, ("Saenz Declaration," Dkt. No. 81-15 (attaching Exhibit A)).

Defendants opposed the Class Certification and PI Motions on April 3, 2020. ("Class Certification Opposition," Dkt. No. 94; "PI Opposition," Dkt. No. 95.) In support of the Oppositions, Defendants included the Declaration of Lindsay M. Vick, ("Vick Declaration," Dkt. No. 95-1, 110 (attaching Exhibits 1 to 13, including declarations of Dr. Ada Rivera and several Declarations of Captain Jennifer Moon).) Defendants also included evidentiary objections to several of Plaintiffs' declarations. (See Dkt. Nos. 95-15 to 95-25.)

Plaintiffs replied on April 9, 2020, ("Class Certification Reply," Dkt. No. 111; "PI Reply," Dkt. No. 113), and responded to Defendants' evidentiary objections, (Dkt. Nos. 97-107). In support of their Replies, Plaintiffs included the declaration of Elizabeth Jordan, ("Jordan Declaration II," Dkt. No 113-1 (attaching Exhibits A to G, and Appendix 1)), and the supplemental declaration of Homer Venters, ("Venters Declaration II," Dkt. No. 113-2).

On April 9, 2020, the Court also received two motions to file amicus briefs. (Dkt. No. 117, 119.) The Court GRANTS the motions and accepts as filed³ the amicus briefs of : (1) Casa de Paz, Church World Service – Jersey City, Clergy & Laity United for Economic Justice, Detention Watch Network, El Refugio, First Friends of New Jersey & New York, and Freedom for Immigrants ("Casa de Paz, et al. Amicus," Dkt. No. 117-2); and (2) Public Health Experts ("Public Health Amicus," Dkt. No. 119-2).

On April 10, 2020, Defendants filed a supplement to their Opposition, ("Defendants' Supplement," Dkt. No. 121.) Defendants attached the following documents to the Supplement:

• Declaration of Gabriel Valdez, ("Valdez Declaration," Dkt. No. 121-1);

• Declaration of Michael Nelson, ("Nelson Declaration," Dkt. No. 121-2);

• Declaration of John Bretz, ("Brez Declaration," Dkt. No. 121-3);

• COVID-19 Detained Docket Review Guidance, dated April 4, 2020 (April 4 Docket Review Guidance," Dkt. No 121-4).

Defendants also attached several decisions from district courts, and a recently filed case, regarding the release of immigration detainees or prisoners. (Dkt. Nos. 121-5 to 121-11.) On April 12, 2020, Plaintiffs submitted a supplement. ("Jordan Declaration III," Dkt. No. 122 (attaching Exhibits A to D).) On the morning of the April 13, 2020 hearing, Defendants submitted supplemented their filing with a recent ICE policy document. (Dkt. No. 124-1.)

After the hearing, Defendants filed a further factual supplement at the Court's request. ("Holt Declaration," Dkt. No. 125-1.) Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application to file a response, which Defendants opposed. (Dkt. Nos. 127, 128.) The ex parte application is DENIED AS MOOT

B. Facts⁴

In this Section the Court summarizes relevant background on COVID-19, the risk posed to immigration detainees, ICE's systemwide actions and inactions in response to that threat, Plaintiffs' critique of that response, and the current conditions of confinement at about a dozen facilities nationwide.

1. Risk of COVID-19 Spread in Immigration Detention Facilities

The novel coronavirus...