Orantes-Hernandez v. Gonzales
Decision Date | 24 July 2007 |
Docket Number | No. CV82-01107-MMM(VBKX).,CV82-01107-MMM(VBKX). |
Citation | 504 F.Supp.2d 825 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
Parties | Crosby Wilfredo ORANTES-HERNANDEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants. |
Karen C. Tumlin, Linton Joaquin, National Immigration Law Center, Mark D. Rosenbaum, Ranjana Natarajan, ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Frank Michael Travieso, John E. Nordin, II, AUSA-Office of US Attorney, Civil
Division, Los Angeles, CA, Victor M. Lawrence, Office of U.S. Immigration Litigation, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISSOLVE THE ORANTES INJUNCTION
Plaintiffs filed this action in 1982, challenging practices and procedures allegedly employed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") to detain, process and remove Salvadoran nationals who had entered the United States. Plaintiffs sued on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of "all citizens and nationals of El Salvador eligible to apply for political asylum ... who ... have been or will be taken into custody ... by agents of the [Department of Homeland Security]." Orantes-Hernandez v. Meese, 685 F.Supp. 1488, 1491 (C.D.Cal.1988) ("Orantes II"), affd., 919 F.2d 549 (9th Cir.1990). Judge David Kenyon, certified the Orantes class on April 30, 1982.1
On April 29, 1988, Judge Kenyon entered a permanent injunction mandating that the INS use specific procedures when detaining, processing and removing Salvadoran immigrants. See Orantes II, 685 F.Supp. at 1511-13. On July 2, 1991, he modified the injunction to add four conditions that applied solely to the Port Isabel Service Processing Center in Port Isabel, Texas ("Orantes injunction"). On September 28, 2004, the court entered a stipulated order clarifying the terms of the injunction to eliminate the possibility that the Office of Refugee Settlement could be held to be in violation of its terms.2
On November 28, 2005, the government filed a motion to dissolve the injunction. It asserted (1) that there had been a significant change in the factual circumstances that led to issuance of the injunction — i.e., the end of the civil war and attendant human rights abuses in El Salvador, and the adoption of a range of procedures by U.S. immigration authorities that ensure that aliens are advised of their right to apply for asylum and are not coerced into waiving that right; and (2) that there had been an intervening change in law — i.e., the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRIRA"), which provides for expedited removal of inadmissible aliens. As respects the intervening change in law, the government argued that the injunction conflicted with IIRIRA and the regulations governing expedited removal, and also that the injunction made it burdensome for immigration authorities to place Salvadorans in expedited removal. The court bifurcated this issue, and heard the government's argument regarding the purported facial conflict in September 2006. Following the hearing, it issued an order modifying paragraphs two and eleven of the injunction. The parties argued the balance of the government's reasons for seeking dissolution of the injunction on December 20, 2006. This order addresses those arguments.
Until 1992, courts asked to dissolve existing injunctions applied a standard first articulated in United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 52 S.Ct. 460, 76 L.Ed. 999 (1932). Swift was the culmination of a government antitrust action against the meat-packing industry. The government alleged that defendants had suppressed competition in the purchase of livestock and sale of dressed meats, and that, having eliminated competition in meat products, they had also suppressed competition in the sale of other products, such as fish, vegetables, fruit and groceries. Id. at 110, 52 S.Ct. 460. In 1920, defendants agreed to a consent decree that banned them, inter alia, from owning retail meat markets or stockyards, and from manufacturing, selling, or transporting 114 varieties of foodstuffs. Id. at 111, 52 S.Ct. 460. Ten years later, five meat packers petitioned for modification of the decree, arguing that conditions in the meat-packing and grocery industries had changed. Id. at 113, 52 S.Ct. 460. The lower court modified the injunction to permit the meat packers to sell groceries and other commodities at wholesale, but retained the ban on retail sales of such products. Id. at 113-14, 52 S.Ct. 460.
An appeal followed. The Supreme Court framed "the question [that had to be resolved as] whether [a modification could] be made without prejudice to the interests of the classes whom th[e] particular restraint was intended to protect." Id. at 117-18, 52 S.Ct. 460. It answered this inquiry in the negative, noting that industry changes had reduced the likelihood that defendants would once again monopolize the sale of meats, but that the changes had not substantially reduced the possibility that there would be antitrust violations in the sale of other food products if the injunction were dissolved. Id. at 117-18, 52 S.Ct. 460. The Court's conclusion was reinforced by evidence that there had been sporadic instances of unfair practices by the meat packers even after the monopoly was broken and the consent decree entered. Id. at 118, 52 S.Ct. 460. It cautioned: "Nothing less than a showing of grievous wrong evoked by new and unforeseen conditions should lead us to change what was decreed after, years of litigation with the consent of all concerned." Id. at 119, 52 S.Ct. 460.
The "grievous wrong" language in Swift worked an "apparent hardening of the usual standard for modifying decrees of injunctive relief." New York States Ass'n for Retarded Children Inc. v. Carey, 706 F.2d 956, 968 (2d Cir.1983). As a result, courts often held that modification or dissolution of an injunction was not warranted unless the party requesting relief could show a "grievous wrong" — a nearly insurmountable standard that "ward[ed] off virtually all efforts to modify consent decrees." Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 379, 112 S.Ct. 748, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992); see also United States v. City of Chicago, 663 F.2d 1354, 1359 (7th Cir.1981) ( ).
Under the "grievous wrong" standard, a party seeking modification or dissolution of an injunction had to meet a heavy burden of proof that often exceeded the burden imposed on parties seeking an injunction in the first instance. See Swift, 286 U.S. at 119, 52 S.Ct. 460 () ; Ruiz v. Lynaugh, 811 F.2d 856, 860-61 (5th Cir.1987) ( ).
Subsequent Supreme Court cases, however, emphasized that courts had "misconceived the thrust" of Swift by focusing rigidly on the "grievous wrong" language. See Board of Ed. of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 246-48, 111 S.Ct. 630, 112 L.Ed.2d 715 (1991) ( ); United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 391 U.S. 244, 248, 88 S.Ct. 1496, 20 L.Ed.2d 562 (1968) ( ).
In United Shoe Machinery, the government sought modification of an injunction, claiming that additional relief was needed to fulfill the "purposes of the litigation." The district court denied the request, reading Swift as limiting modification to cases involving "(1) a clear showing of (2) grievous wrong (3) evoked by new and unforeseen conditions." United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 266 F.Supp. 328, 330 (D.Mass.1967). The Supreme Court held that this interpretation was too rigid, and noted that Swift `s reference to a "grievous wrong" had to be read in context. Because the original injunction had resulted in little progress toward the accomplishment of the decree's goals, the Court concluded that modification would promote, not subvert, the "purposes of the litigation." United Shoe Machinery, 391 U.S. at 248-49, 88 S.Ct. 1496.
In the 1980's, courts increasingly adopted a more flexible approach to requests for modification or dissolution of injunctions, particularly in institutional reform cases. See Carey, 706 F.2d at 970 ( ); City of Chicago, 663 F.2d at 1360 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Citizens for Quality Educ. San Diego v. Barrera
...Velazquez Decl. ¶¶ 1–13.) The boilerplate nature of the declarations undermines their credibility. See Orantes-Hernandez v. Gonzales , 504 F.Supp.2d 825, 848–49 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (finding a set of declarations not to be "entirely credible" because "[m]ost of these declarations are written in......
-
Orantes-hernandez v. Holder
...a permanent injunction, in evaluating whether all of the circumstances that presently obtain warrant[ ] dissolution of the injunction,” id. at 838, the court evaluated and compared not only past and present conditions in El Salvador, but also past and present INS practices, and past and pre......
-
Rodriguez v. Tilton
...the case doctrine ensures the finality of legal issues decided in an earlier proceeding in the same suit." Orantes-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 504 F. Supp. 2d 825, 836 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (citing Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 619 (1983)). Avoiding "reconsideration of questions previously dec......
-
Earth Island Inst. v. Bird, Case No. 2:08-CV-01897 JAM-JFM
...circumstances into account in determining whether to modify or vacate a prior injunction or consent decree. Orantes-Herndandez v. Gonzales, 504 F.Supp.2d 825, 830 (CD. Cal. 2007); aff'd, 2009 WL 905454 (9th Cir. 2009). The National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600 et seq., pr......