Ochoa v. Campbell

• Decision Date: 31 July 2017
• Docket Number: No. 1:17–CV–03124–SMJ,1:17–CV–03124–SMJ
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Washington
• Parties: Antonio Sanchez OCHOA, Plaintiff, v. Ed W. CAMPBELL, Director of the Yakima County Department of Corrections; Scott Himes, Chief of the Yakima County Department of Corrections; Yakima County, Defendants.

266 F.Supp.3d 1237

Antonio Sanchez OCHOA, Plaintiff,

v.Ed W. CAMPBELL, Director of the Yakima County Department of Corrections; Scott Himes, Chief of the Yakima County Department of Corrections; Yakima County, Defendants.

No. 1:17–CV–03124–SMJ

United States District Court, E.D. Washington.

Signed July 31, 2017

Lori A. Jordan Isley, Bernardo Rafael Cruz, Columbia Legal Services, Yakima, WA, Leila Kang, Matthew H. Adams, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff.

Quinn N. Plant, Kenneth W. Harper, Menke Jackson Beyer LLP, Yakima, WA, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR., United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Antonio Sanchez Ochoa is currently in Yakima County Department of Corrections' (DOC) custody on state criminal charges. He alleges that he is unable to post bail on his state criminal charges because Defendants Director Ed Campbell, Chief Scott Himes, and Yakima County (collectively "Defendants") placed an immigration hold on him. Sanchez Ochoa alleges that the immigration hold has resulted in continued detention without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and he seeks a temporary restraining order from this Court directing Defendants to remove the immigration hold so he can post bail on his state criminal charges and be released from DOC's custody. Defendants oppose the request.

The Court has reviewed the entire docket in this matter, the applicable law, and heard argument from the parties and the United States on July 25, 2017. For the reasons detailed below, the Court concludes that Defendants' placement of a hold on Sanchez Ochoa caused a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes. Defendants have referred to the hold as an "ICE hold" and an "immigration hold." An immigration hold by any other name is still an immigration hold. To place the immigration hold, Defendants impermissibly relied on an administrative warrant issued by immigration authorities. Further, the Court concludes that Sanchez Ochoa is likely to succeed on the merits of his Fourth Amendment claim and meets the standard for obtaining the requested relief. At the hearing, the Court granted Sanchez Ochoa's motion. This Order memorializes, supplements, and clarifies the Court's oral ruling.

II. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On July 17, 2017, Plaintiff Antonio Sanchez Ochoa filed an unverified complaint against Ed W. Campbell, Director of the Yakima County Department of Corrections (DOC), Scott Himes, Chief of the DOC, and Yakima County pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983, alleging that his detention violates the Fourth Amendment. ECF No. 1 at 10. Specifically, he asserts that Defendants' policy and practice of detaining individuals before they are released from DOC's custody based solely on an immigration hold issued pursuant to a U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) administrative warrant violates his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure. Id. at 1–2 and 10. Sanchez Ochoa argues that such administrative warrants—issued by DHS personnel without a judicial warrant or independent finding of probable cause that the person subject to the warrant has committed a crime—do not provide state or local law enforcement officers authority to arrest or detain individuals for immigration violations. Id. at 2.

Sanchez Ochoa is currently charged with second degree assault and malicious mischief in state court and has been in the DOC's custody since May 3, 2017. Id. at 3; ECF No. 7–2 at 7; ECF No. 22 at 2. He has not been charged with a federal offense, he has not been sentenced, and he is not awaiting transport to a Bureau of Prisons facility. ECF No. 1 at 4.

Sanchez Ochoa's immigration status became an issue shortly after his detention began, on May 4, 2017, when ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Deportation Officer Terrence Hawkinson learned that ICE previously encountered Sanchez Ochoa in August 2008. ECF No. 26–1 at 2. In August 2008, Jackson County, Oregon officials detained Sanchez Ochoa on a state criminal charge (and subsequent conviction) of driving under the influence (DUI). Id. at 2. After his release by local law enforcement, ICE officers took Sanchez Ochoa into custody. Id. at 2. ICE ultimately granted Sanchez Ochoa's request to voluntarily return to Mexico, and released him. Id. at 2.

After learning Sanchez Ochoa's prior contact with ICE officials in 2008, Officer Hawkinson interviewed Sanchez Ochoa at the Yakima County jail. ECF No. 1 at 4; ECF No. 26–1 at 3. Sanchez Ochoa identified himself and admitted that he is a citizen of Mexico.¹ ECF No. 26–1 at 3. But Sanchez Ochoa refused to answer Officer Hawkinson's subsequent questions. ECF No. 1 at 4; ECF No. 26–1 at 3.

Thereafter, DHS issued an administrative warrant for Sanchez Ochoa's arrest using Form I–200. ECF No. 7–1 at 5; ECF No. 26–1 at 3. This document is directed to "any immigration officer" authorized by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and implementing regulations to "serve warrants of arrest for immigration violations." ECF No. 7–1 at 5. ICE Enforcement and Removal Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer Michael Gladish signed the administrative arrest warrant on Form I–200 after Officer Hawkinson presented information about Sanchez Ochoa. ECF No. 7–1 at 5; ECF No. 26–1 at 3.

The administrative warrant states that Gladish "determined that there is probable cause to believe that Sanchez Ochoa, Antonio is removable from the United States." ECF No. 7–1 at 5. Gladish's determination was based on "statements made voluntarily by" Sanchez Ochoa "to an immigration officer and/or other reliable evidence that affirmatively indicate [Sanchez Ochoa] either lacks immigration status or notwithstanding such status is removable under U.S. immigration law." Id. at 5. The warrant commands any authorized immigration officer to "arrest and take [Sanchez Ochoa] into custody for removal proceedings." Id.

Sanchez Ochoa also alleges that DOC no longer accepts ICE detainers (I–247 Forms) alone as the basis for detaining an individual on ICE's behalf. ECF No. 1 at 6–7; ECF No. 7–3 at 9. However, Sanchez Ochoa asserts that DOC currently places immigration holds on individuals based solely on administrative warrants (I–200 Forms). ECF No. 1 at 7; ECF No. 7–3 at 9, 16. The record reflects that DOC placed an "immigration hold" on Sanchez Ochoa's jail roster—which is a document produced by DOC pursuant to Washington Revised Code (RCW) § 70.48.100² —citing "ICE" as the relevant statute giving rise to his detention. ECF No. 7–2 at 7. There is no case number or bond amount listed for Sanchez Ochoa's immigration hold. ECF No. 7–2 at 7.

DOC contests Sanchez Ochoa's characterization of the facts. See generally ECF No. 24. Scott Himes, Chief of the DOC, states that he is not sure what "immigration hold" means. ECF No. 22 at 3. Himes, and all Defendants, maintain that DOC is holding Sanchez Ochoa pursuant to state criminal charges only, and that Sanchez Ochoa's detention continues because he has not posted bail on those charges. ECF No. 24 at 3. Defendants assert that they "noted in [their] records that [DHS] has issued a Form I–200 [ ] concerning Mr. Ochoa." Id. But they allege the purpose of this notation is only "to ensure that when he is released, Mr. Ochoa will be released into the custody of DHS." Id. Chief Himes describes DOC's policy with regard to administrative warrants issued on I–200 Forms as follows:

The Yakima County Jail's notation regarding the I–200 is similar to the manner in which the jail would record any notice of a warrant or criminal charges issued by another jurisdiction. For example, if the Yakima County Jail received notice that criminal charged [sic ] have been filed against an inmate in another county, such notice is also entered into the electronic jail management system, which then populates the online jail web portal. As with the I–200, the purpose of recording the notice is to ensure that the inmate is transferred to the appropriate jurisdiction upon release from custody of Yakima County.

ECF No. 22 at 2–3.

On July 5, 2017, Sanchez Ochoa requested that Defendants remove the immigration hold. ECF No. 1 at 8. In a letter dated July 6, 2017, Defendant Director Campbell made no decision or promises about removing the "ICE hold," but said that Sanchez Ochoa could post bail on the ICE hold "through the Federal Courts." ECF No. 1 at 8; ECF No. 7–4 at 16.

Sanchez Ochoa contends that his family has the resources to pay the $ 50,000 bond on his state charges but that DOC will not accept bail because of the immigration hold. ECF No. 1 at 8; ECF No. 6 at 2; ECF No. 8 at 2. Moreover, he alleges bail bondspersons will not provide services on state charges to individuals with immigration holds detained in Yakima County because they will not be released from custody.

ECF No. 1 at 9; ECF No. 9 at 2; ECF No. 10.

Defendants contest Sanchez Ochoa's factual allegations. They state that the jail is willing to accept bail on Sanchez Ochoa's state charges, that he is being detained on state charges only and not because of an immigration hold, and that the immigration hold is a notation meant to ensure that DOC releases Sanchez Ochoa to DHS's custody, should he be released from DOC custody. ECF No. 24 at 2–3.

The day after he filed this lawsuit, Sanchez Ochoa filed the present motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) asking this Court to direct Defendants to remove the immigration hold so that he can post bail on his state charges and be released. ECF No. 6 at 1–2. Defendants counter that he is free to post bail on his state charges. ECF No. 24 at 3.

The day after Sanchez Ochoa filed his motion seeking a TRO, he served Defendants Himes and Yakima County with notice of this lawsuit and the TRO motion, among other documents. ECF No. 12 and 13. Defendant Campbell was not served with notice of either the suit or the TRO motion....